Michael Dunn, 47, faces first-degree murder charges in the death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis on November 23, 2012.

Dunn said he had asked the teenagers to turn down their music, Davis refused and the two exchanged words (threats). Dunn says he opened fire because he thought he saw the barrel of a shotgun pointed out the back window at him, though police found no weapon.

(According to NPR) Dunn fired 4 shots into Davis's vehicle, then four more shots as they pulled away. Witnesses reported no sign of Davis or anyone else attempting to leave the car prior to shots being fired.

So, this looks to me like a pretty open and shut case of belligerent abuse of a firearm that resulted in the death of an unarmed teenager (all racial tensions aside). Honestly I felt certain conflict over the Trayvon Martin shooting, but if the same application of the 'stand your ground' policy is applied here it would seem to me to be a blatant disregard for justice.

Now I'm not opposed to gun ownership, I just have a healthy respect for the fact that as long as people own and have access to guns, there will be wrongful gun-deaths. That's as true for police and military personnel (who receive rigorous training in the use of their weapons) as it is for civilians (who are in many cases not required to have the same). So, I feel that laws should put responsibility on the gun-owner not to let the use of their weapon cause someone else's death, in self-defense or not. Murder in self-defense to my mind is every bit as morally culpable as cold-blooded murder, even if we must necessarily distinguish it for legal purposes.

Anyway, just wanted to see what dissent, discussion my fellow writers of Elliquiy might offer on this case.

Regardless of the other details, the fact that half this guy's shots were fired as they were trying to drive away from him should be enough to make any kind of "I felt endangered" claim 100% bs. Even if they HAD a shotgun in the car, if they never fired it and he kept shooting while they were trying to get away from the crazy guy shooting at them, its presence should be irrelevant.

So, I feel that laws should put responsibility on the gun-owner not to let the use of their weapon cause someone else's death, in self-defense or not.

What do you mean by a law for responsibility on gun-ownership to not cause another person's death, in self-defense or not? Perhaps you could explain this further.

I just don't understand the purpose of owning a firearm for defensive purposes, if the intent isn't to have the potential of shooting someone during warranted situations. (Unless it is being used specifically for hunting).

It doesn't help that this guy was at a service station. Zimmerman at least had the weak excuse that he was functioning as Neighborhood Watch.

(And I agree with Valthazar: my father, grandfather and uncle all owned guns at one point or another - Dad served in two wars, and Grandpa and my uncle were both hunters - and I learned that shooting 'to wound' is something that you only see in the movies.)

It doesn't help that this guy was at a service station. Zimmerman at least had the weak excuse that he was functioning as Neighborhood Watch.

(And I agree with Valthazar: my father, grandfather and uncle all owned guns at one point or another - Dad served in two wars, and Grandpa and my uncle were both hunters - and I learned that shooting 'to wound' is something that you only see in the movies.)

As the daughter and sister to retired cops who served in the army and marines, niece to a deputy sheriff and gun lover myself, I can tell you that if you pull a gun on someone you had best be ready to shoot to kill. There is no shooting to wound. If all you do is wound then you stand a chance of the other person taking your gun and using it on you.

It's real simple - guns do not kill people. People kill people. All this bitching over guns when guns are not the problem. We humans are the problem.

What do you mean by a law for responsibility on gun-ownership to not cause another person's death, in self-defense or not? Perhaps you could explain this further.

I just don't understand the purpose of owning a firearm for defensive purposes, if the intent isn't to have the potential of shooting someone during warranted situations. (Unless it is being used specifically for hunting).

Florida (and other state's) "Stand your ground" law is a big part of the controversy, because it preemptively justifies a gun owners use of their firearm in any situation where they 'feel threatened' without exploring other options to retreat or otherwise resolve the situation without violence. This obviously appeals to certain 'honorable' sentiments and echoes the romanticized "These Colors Don't Run" battlefield mentality.

Problem is, none of those various sentiments are, to my way of thinking, morally justifiable, especially in a civilian setting. To be clear, I affirm the right to own a gun as a defensive weapon, and with proper training and due care it is undeniably effective in that regard. The problem is, just owning a gun doesn't provide you with the skills to use one effectively in defense, let alone instill the responsibility you take on in owning and operating a tool specifically designed to end human life.

In short, my stance is that murder in self defense is every bit as reprehensible as murder (aggravated, premeditated, or otherwise). Laws should reflect that, I think, by not automatically exonerating those who use a gun in self-defense or put another way, people who own guns should still have the threat of a murder charge over their head even when they use the gun "defensively".

As the daughter and sister to retired cops who served in the army and marines, niece to a deputy sheriff and gun lover myself, I can tell you that if you pull a gun on someone you had best be ready to shoot to kill. There is no shooting to wound. If all you do is wound then you stand a chance of the other person taking your gun and using it on you.

It's real simple - guns do not kill people. People kill people. All this bitching over guns when guns are not the problem. We humans are the problem.

To paraphrase Chris Rock, "Guns help."

If you stick two people in a room, give one of them a gun, and let the other guy point his finger and go 'bang' then the outcome is going to be pretty obvious.

People kill people, and guns make it easy for potentially anyone to kill anyone else even by accident. Look at it this way, if you hand a psychotic killer a knife and put them in a crowded room, their potential to commit mass murder is less than that of a 6 year old with an loaded handgun in the same situation.

Training, licensing, and more importantly, renewal licensing (i.e., a license that has to be requalified for, much like licenses for driving, piloting, or performing CPR) would be things I could get behind to deal with the concerns you bring up. In order to own a gun, one should have training in how to use it as an effective defense, and should have the responsibility to care for, use, and keep the weapon safely.

Training, licensing, and more importantly, renewal licensing (i.e., a license that has to be requalified for, much like licenses for driving, piloting, or performing CPR) would be things I could get behind to deal with the concerns you bring up. In order to own a gun, one should have training in how to use it as an effective defense, and should have the responsibility to care for, use, and keep the weapon safely.

I agree completely, but in the strictest sense, those measures can be construed as a violation of the second amendment, and that is unfortunately the hard line stance supported by the overwhelming majority of the gun-right interest groups (if not gun owners).

Alternatively, the second amendment does not protect the rights of people to use their firearms indiscriminately, and given that a gun is a tool specifically designed to end human life, to my mind, the use of any gun (with the exception of certain small caliber sporting weapons) in proximity to human beings is tantamount to reckless endangerment, and even the use of a gun "in self-defense" requires murderous intent.

And you are missing the point. It doesn't matter what weapon you give someone, if they want to kill someone... they will. Bare handed, knives, baseball bats, guns, car, hair dryer, tv. This focus on guns is ridiculous. Try doing a little research, there have been cases of someone killing and injuring a fairly large number of people with knives in a crowded setting.

I agree completely, but in the strictest sense, those measures can be construed as a violation of the second amendment, and that is unfortunately the hard line stance supported by the overwhelming majority of the gun-right interest groups (if not gun owners).

Alternatively, the second amendment does not protect the rights of people to use their firearms indiscriminately, and given that a gun is a tool specifically designed to end human life, to my mind, the use of any gun (with the exception of certain small caliber sporting weapons) in proximity to human beings is tantamount to reckless endangerment, and even the use of a gun "in self-defense" requires murderous intent.

The words that the 'hard liners' forget is 'To ensure a well-regulated militia'. That implies regulations right there.

"...... and even the use of a gun "in self-defense" requires murderous intent."

If I am having to defend myself against someone you better believe there is murderous intent. I will do all I can to ensure that I survive and my assailant does not. That is the whole point of self defense.

And you are missing the point. It doesn't matter what weapon you give someone, if they want to kill someone... they will. Bare handed, knives, baseball bats, guns, car, hair dryer, tv. This focus on guns is ridiculous. Try doing a little research, there have been cases of someone killing and injuring a fairly large number of people with knives in a crowded setting.

Yes, because I find this anecdotal evidence not to be convincing. That's four cases out of how many incidents of similar injuries and death? I've no doubt that given enough time you could find sufficient data to support your point, but that's part of the problem. Gun violence is such a partisan issue it's nearly impossible to find objective data and analysis in how guns factor into violent crime and death, or more accurately, it is easy enough to find any data to support any position on either side of the debate.

The idea though that people intent on violence and death will find a way to commit such action is a misnomer though. Statistically, we've found exactly the opposite, that the more difficult you make it to commit violence, crimes (and especially suicide), the less people actually commit those crimes. Knives, bats, improvised weapons and just about anything make those crimes possible, but guns go above and beyond the call of duty in that regard.

That's what my point is, that guns magnify and amplify the ability for anyone to commit violent action, particularly lethal violence, and it does not discriminate as to who is handling the gun. A 9 year old holding knife does not represent the potential for mass murder that a 9 year old holding a semi-automatic handgun does (let alone a fully automatic weapon).

Now look, I'm a gun owner too, and I fully support the right of everyone to potentially own a gun, I'm just saying that their is a particular moral responsibility related to gun ownership which should translate into harsher legal ramifications.

If I am having to defend myself against someone you better believe there is murderous intent. I will do all I can to ensure that I survive and my assailant does not. That is the whole point of self defense.

Right, I fully support that. So you should be able to be tried and convicted of murder then too right? In self-defense?

I think you need to learn to differentiate between the varying degrees of murder. I have every right to defend my life, the lives of my children, my home and if I kill someone in the process of doing so it is not the same as me picking up a gun and killing every asshole that calls into my job and pisses me off.

And if you are going to say self defense is murder and thus should be tried in court... well... I guess every military person who has ever killed an enemy combatant should be tried. As well as every cop who has ever had to kill someone in the line of duty.

Okay anyone who has read me much knows the mere implication of gun control robs me of all reason. I was a long time voting member of the NRA before I let the membership lapse and I utterly loath most any stance supporting gun control. The simple reason I take this stance is my belief the government will screw up anything it touches, and yes I work for the government. There are many common sense gun control measures I could, would, and do support with the exception of the fact that I have utterly no faith in government to get it right. I think you will find many hard line gun control opponents are like me in that the reason we are hard line is that we do not feel it will be gotten right.

Let me give you a little example of idiocy I have experienced personally. As an avid outdoorsman I often buy raffle tickets for guns to support various conservation causes. A few years back I happened to win one. Lucky me! I went to pick up the gun I won with the purchase of a $1 raffle ticket from Ducks Unlimited. I had to go through a three day waiting period, a background check, and jump through various other hoops because I won said gun. Now excuse me but I am not so sure that someone planning a mass killing would go buy a freaking raffle ticket to do said killing. This was a minor inconvenience to me but I use it to illustrate the idiocy of how the laws often work out and why I oppose more that could lead to more serious rights infringements due to idiocy. And I am sorry to those who stand on the well regulated militia portion of the second amendment, but if you review the court records in recent years including decisions from the Supreme Court in cases versus District of Columbia and City of Chicago you will find the Court stood with Second Amendment advocates. In fact the State of Illinois was recently ordered to implement a concealed carry law because it was the only state in the union that did not have one. Google it and read up on it at the news source of your choosing so my sources are not impeached, it is a simple judicial fact.

Having said that the linked article describes a fellow being dumb. He should go to jail assuming the facts are as laid out in the article. Or possibly be executed for murder. But it fits into a point I wish to make in closing. All gun cases are not equal or covered by the same facts. The article I am about to link describes my feelings on the whole matter much better than my poor word smithing ever could. I have been saving this link for many months since I felt it was so good and I knew the topic of gun control would at some point raise it's evil head again.

I think you need to learn to differentiate between the varying degrees of murder. I have every right to defend my life, the lives of my children, my home and if I kill someone in the process of doing so it is not the same as me picking up a gun and killing every asshole that calls into my job and pisses me off.

And if you are going to say self defense is murder and thus should be tried in court... well... I guess every military person who has ever killed an enemy combatant should be tried. As well as every cop who has ever had to kill someone in the line of duty.

So if someone is pointing a gun at me, readying to shoot, and I pull out my gun and kill them, you want to charge me for murder?

Oh, I see the need for a legal distinction between varying degrees of murder. Obviously, it would be impractical to try and try every single soldier who has killed enemy combatants in a time of war, or police officers who use firearms in the line of duty.

I'm saying that the reason these legal distinctions exist is a matter of judicial expedience, and that morally there is little to know distinction between "types" of murder. The point is that civilians are just that, civilians. The reason we don't charge soldiers with murder or police officers is that they are explicitly authorized by the government to utilize firearms in the defense of the American people, with the full knowledge that this means people will be killed (and sometimes the wrong people). When civilians are similarly authorized to utilize guns around and against other civilians, the same mentality applies, except that because civilians are not specially trained or authorized to act in the defense of the nation or community as a whole, the same allowances cannot be made.

Granted, I think that certain legal allowances can still be made for murder in self-defense, you should be able to definitively prove that it was your life or their's before you expect anything resembling leniency.

I live in Illinois Oniya and we now have a concealed carry law, but yes we were the last state that did not have one. I am waiting to apply for mine because the system has been made -really- cumbersome so as to have conceal carry in name only and it is being further tested in the courts. But yes Chicago is more stringent in many ways than NYC when it comes to gun control. Ironic then that last year it lead the nation in murders. Of course the city blames those murders on those of us who live in the rest of the state because we have guns so we must be sneaking into Chicago at night and killing people. That was sarcasm of course, but yeah all part of why I take such a hard line stance.

I'm saying that the reason these legal distinctions exist is a matter of judicial expedience, and that morally there is little to know distinction between "types" of murder. The point is that civilians are just that, civilians. The reason we don't charge soldiers with murder or police officers is that they are explicitly authorized by the government to utilize firearms in the defense of the American people, with the full knowledge that this means people will be killed (and sometimes the wrong people). When civilians are similarly authorized to utilize guns around and against other civilians, the same mentality applies, except that because civilians are not specially trained or authorized to act in the defense of the nation or community as a whole, the same allowances cannot be made.

It is because of the underlined and bolded portions quoted that people like yourself will always disagree with people like IO, Retribution, and myself.

We hold different interpretations of the Constitution. Personally, I feel that the government has never authorized me the permission to do anything. I'm a free man, and we as a society, simply have laws that serve to modestly decrease this limit of freedom within reason to prevent acts that we deem morally wrong.

We can debate this forever, but until we discuss that underlying principle, this discussion will go nowhere.

I sympathize with the situation, but I'm afraid it rings pretty hollow with me as a productive line of reasoning.

I mean, if your position is that the government is incapable of running anything as important as gun control effectively, then why should we trust the government with something even more important like, say, national security? Military action at home and abroad? Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties?

The government is an institution created and maintained by human beings as capable of error as any. In other words, we can't absolutely trust the government to do everything right all the time. We resort to government regulation out of necessity, and the necessity for the regulation of firearms I think should be self-evident. To my mind, that's why the second amendment exists, to make sure that the government can't fuck up gun-control too badly even by accident. You can always appeal to the second amendment to make sure that no one is being unduly robbed of their rights, but the hard line stance that there should be no regulation of gun control, ever, because the government can't be trusted in all cases all of the time blocks any kind of progress.

There has to be give and take on both sides of the debate in acknowledgement that neither side is any more infallible than the other.

Like Val said the constitution protects us from the government it does not give the government authority over us. As for self defense I have close family in both military and law enforcement. Hell, I work in pseudo law enforcement. Also, between my teen age children and myself I have no real clue how many firearms there are in my house. They each have a differing use like different kinds of screw drivers.

I also think I am a moral man, but if someone breaks into my family's home while we are present the prudent thing to do is to call the coroner and cut out the middle man because that intruder is as good as dead I am morally just fine with that.

Oh, I see the need for a legal distinction between varying degrees of murder. Obviously, it would be impractical to try and try every single soldier who has killed enemy combatants in a time of war, or police officers who use firearms in the line of duty.

I'm saying that the reason these legal distinctions exist is a matter of judicial expedience, and that morally there is little to know distinction between "types" of murder. The point is that civilians are just that, civilians. The reason we don't charge soldiers with murder or police officers is that they are explicitly authorized by the government to utilize firearms in the defense of the American people, with the full knowledge that this means people will be killed (and sometimes the wrong people). When civilians are similarly authorized to utilize guns around and against other civilians, the same mentality applies, except that because civilians are not specially trained or authorized to act in the defense of the nation or community as a whole, the same allowances cannot be made.

Granted, I think that certain legal allowances can still be made for murder in self-defense, you should be able to definitively prove that it was your life or their's before you expect anything resembling leniency.

For this specific case, that certainly doesn't seem to apply.

I abhor knee jerk reactions. This case is not indicative of every single case of murder by the use of a gun and it should not be used as such.

And again, one of the nice things about living in this country is the Second Amendment - I think you need to read it. If you are going to say "oh sure, you have the right to self defense" but then remove the ability to defend one's self with a gun then you've rendered self defense moot. Oh, and you know how you think it is the cops' job to come to your house and defend you? Wrong. They are not on the job to defend you. They are on the job to make sure the laws of the city, county, state are upheld. And honestly, I'd not trust a cop to get to my house in time to defend me. When it can take forty five minutes to an hour and a half for a cop to show up, I think it better that I be in charge of my own self defense.

Now, I am guessing that you've never actually bothered to do any research and you are basing your opinions off what you think is the case or what you've heard other people say. If that's the case, let me shed a little light.

If you kill someone in self defense, you have to prove that it was self defense. In the state I live in, if someone is trying to break into my house, I cannot shoot them until they come INTO my house. If I get trigger happy and shoot them before they cross the threshold, I am, at the very least, liable.

There is no state that allows you to just willy nilly kill someone and say "oh, it was self defense" without giving some proof that it was. You can be indited and put before the Grand Jury if the DA thinks you did not satisfy the 'self defense' claim.

BTW, find yourself in a situation where you have to defend yourself and talk to me again about this topic. It's amazing how much opinions change when people experience the opposite side of the argument.

I mean, if your position is that the government is incapable of running anything as important as gun control effectively, then why should we trust the government with something even more important like, say, national security? Military action at home and abroad? Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties?

I do the government's business day to day. It outs butter on my biscuit and beer on the table to quote a song. And I feel what I do is important otherwise I would not do it, but the implementation and management there of is screwed up daily. I feel there are indeed certain things the government needs to do, but they micro manage into infinity and tend to really screw it up.

Take a look at the whole health care thing. There are real issues aside from the computer glitches and I use that as yet another example as to how our political process takes a good idea and screws it up. Hell, look at how prohibition failed and gave rise to crime back in the 20s. So there are certain rights one really does not want our incompotent leadership touching.

It is because of the underlined and bolded portions quoted that people like yourself will always disagree with people like IO, Retribution, and myself.

We hold different interpretations of the Constitution. Personally, I feel that the government has never authorized me the permission to do anything. I'm a free man, and we as a society, simply have laws that serve to modestly decrease this limit of freedom within reason to prevent acts that we deem morally wrong.

We can debate this forever, but until we discuss that underlying principle, this discussion will go nowhere.

I'm afraid you've misconstrued the particular principle to which I am appealing. It's not that I feel the government must explicitly authorize people to own and use firearms (that I think we can agree would be a violation of the second amendment) but the fact that they don't has different implications.

The government explicitly authorizes the police and soldiers to use guns to kill other people because it is expedient and necessary for them to do so. Civilians own guns because it is their personal choice to do so, and while it is not the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone who owns a gun is as qualified and authorized as a police officer or soldier in the use of that gun, it is their role to make sure that civilians who use that gun are made culpable (morally/legally) for their actions.

We resort to government regulation out of necessity, and the necessity for the regulation of firearms I think should be self-evident.

How is it self-evident? Are you referring to mass shootings in recent years? Understand the statistics before making these sweeping assumptions. The US murder rate has not altered that much since the availability of automatic weapons. In fact, our overall murder rates are at their lowest levels since the 1960s. Source

Are you also advocating gun control for semi-automatics, another leading cause of crime and murder?

To my mind, that's why the second amendment exists, to make sure that the government can't fuck up gun-control too badly even by accident. You can always appeal to the second amendment to make sure that no one is being unduly robbed of their rights, but the hard line stance that there should be no regulation of gun control, ever, because the government can't be trusted in all cases all of the time blocks any kind of progress.

If yes to the above question, then how does this agree with this statement regarding our second amendment rights? I think most reasonable wouldn't start advocating bans on semi-automatics - I would hope.

I abhor knee jerk reactions. This case is not indicative of every single case of murder by the use of a gun and it should not be used as such.

And again, one of the nice things about living in this country is the Second Amendment - I think you need to read it. If you are going to say "oh sure, you have the right to self defense" but then remove the ability to defend one's self with a gun then you've rendered self defense moot. Oh, and you know how you think it is the cops' job to come to your house and defend you? Wrong. They are not on the job to defend you. They are on the job to make sure the laws of the city, county, state are upheld. And honestly, I'd not trust a cop to get to my house in time to defend me. When it can take forty five minutes to an hour and a half for a cop to show up, I think it better that I be in charge of my own self defense.

Now, I am guessing that you've never actually bothered to do any research and you are basing your opinions off what you think is the case or what you've heard other people say. If that's the case, let me shed a little light.

If you kill someone in self defense, you have to prove that it was self defense. In the state I live in, if someone is trying to break into my house, I cannot shoot them until they come INTO my house. If I get trigger happy and shoot them before they cross the threshold, I am, at the very least, liable.

There is no state that allows you to just willy nilly kill someone and say "oh, it was self defense" without giving some proof that it was. You can be indited and put before the Grand Jury if the DA thinks you did not satisfy the 'self defense' claim.

BTW, find yourself in a situation where you have to defend yourself and talk to me again about this topic. It's amazing how much opinions change when people experience the opposite side of the argument.

Inquitous, I really do not appreciate the blatant attacks on my character or my credibility.

As it happens, I have exhaustively researched this topic for a number of different projects in both academic and professional settings, and conducted recursive analysis comparing gun violence across counties, states, and countries beyond the United States. I don't see the need to resort to citing overly complicated academic articles and studies in this particular forum, especially when you've provided anecdotal examples from news clippings.

For the record, I am a gun owner. I have had to brandish my gun in self-defense. I have never killed anyone, and I do not relish the opportunity to do so.

I am not accusing you of anything, I am referring specifically to the exercise of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" policy and suggesting that it is beneficial to remember that murder in self defense is still murder from a moral stand point. We are not on opposite sides of this debate, you simply seem to insist on making your own case out to be the victimized one, and to what end I cannot understand.

I do the government's business day to day. It outs butter on my biscuit and beer on the table to quote a song. And I feel what I do is important otherwise I would not do it, but the implementation and management there of is screwed up daily. I feel there are indeed certain things the government needs to do, but they micro manage into infinity and tend to really screw it up.

Take a look at the whole health care thing. There are real issues aside from the computer glitches and I use that as yet another example as to how our political process takes a good idea and screws it up. Hell, look at how prohibition failed and gave rise to crime back in the 20s. So there are certain rights one really does not want our incompotent leadership touching.

So the problem isn't with the principle of regulation, but rather with the implementation thereof. That means to me that rather than start repealing or deregulating, we need to take more active steps to hold leadership accountable and that starts with a more progressive stance on educating and informing the constituency.

How is it self-evident? Are you referring to mass shootings in recent years? Understand the statistics before making these sweeping assumptions. The US murder rate has not altered that much since the availability of automatic weapons. In fact, our overall murder rates are at their lowest levels since the 1960s. Source

Are you also advocating gun control for semi-automatics, another leading cause of crime and murder?

If yes to the above question, then how does this agree with this statement regarding our second amendment rights? I think most reasonable wouldn't start advocating bans on semi-automatics - I would hope.

I am not in fact referring to the rise in mass shooting, or else I would have specifically cited it.

I am referring instead, explicitly to the self-evident fact that increased ownership and usership of guns will result in more gun violence and gun deaths, accidental, intentional, self-inflicted, or otherwise. I mean, the best statistic to cite in this debate is that 98% of people who are shot and receive immediate medical attention in the US survive.

If you start factoring in gun-suicides, and attempted murder, there's a whole heck of a lot of gun violence in general. But that's not the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not advocating for any kind of ban on guns (of any kind), just that the use of those guns in any circumstances must carry the strictest sense of culpability. If you're right to own a gun is going to be absolutely maintained, then your exercise of that gun must be held to an equally absolute standard. If we're flexible in our application of gun regulation, then more overall leniency can be allowed in the use of those firearms.

Let me offer an very relevant example of why we should not depend too much on our government and our laws. The case of Trevon Martin and George Zimmerman. As we all know Zimmerman was acquitted. That was because when he pulled the trigger he was legally golden. He was in a hard spot, his person was threatened and he was getting his ass kicked. But that ignores the fact meat head should have never placed himself in that position. At the very least he should be guilty of man slaughter because he did not obey the instructions of the 911 dispatcher and back off. But when the seer on that trigger broke he was in the legal right to defend himself.

In my opinion he should be in jail. But our legal system and our government tends to focus on the forest and miss the trees. It becomes too fixated on covering every conceivable situation so it spends ages beating square pegs into round holes. In my case professionally the SOP is set up to utterly remove my discretion and ability to think. If X happens then I must do Y with no discretion on my part. So I am very slow to trust them with my fundamental rights and things that are intricate to my life style.

And since you posted Chaos while I was typing this yes, holding our leaders more accountable would be great. I just wish I knew how because in recent years I have utterly lost faith in the process.

Let me offer an very relevant example of why we should not depend too much on our government and our laws. The case of Trevon Martin and George Zimmerman. As we all know Zimmerman was acquitted. That was because when he pulled the trigger he was legally golden. He was in a hard spot, his person was threatened and he was getting his ass kicked. But that ignores the fact meat head should have never placed himself in that position. At the very least he should be guilty of man slaughter because he did not obey the instructions of the 911 dispatcher and back off. But when the seer on that trigger broke he was in the legal right to defend himself.

In my opinion he should be in jail. But our legal system and our government tends to focus on the forest and miss the trees. It becomes too fixated on covering every conceivable situation so it spends ages beating square pegs into round holes. In my case professionally the SOP is set up to utterly remove my discretion and ability to think. If X happens then I must do Y with no discretion on my part. So I am very slow to trust them with my fundamental rights and things that are intricate to my life style.

And since you posted Chaos while I was typing this yes, holding our leaders more accountable would be great. I just wish I knew how because in recent years I have utterly lost faith in the process.

I'm as skeptical and cynical as you are Retribution, especially in regards to the Trayvon Martin case (it's one of the reasons I posted about this similar case, because the 'Stand-your-Ground' policy may come up again). The problem that the application of this law in the Trayvon case is apparent to anyone, and I agree Zimmerman should be in jail.

However, in terms of 'missing the trees' the way I see it, government, especially the Federal Government, has to focus on the forest, because the application of justice over a society necessitates cases where there will be misapplication of the law and fall through the cracks. I'm not saying that the good of the many outweighs any single individual case, but rather that the opposite is wholly impractical. Are you familiar with Aeschylus perhaps? The Tragedies of Agamemnon and his family? One of the themes is that so long as two sides of an issue continue to exact vengeance, the violence continues, and that justice doesn't exist simply between two wronged parties, but only in the application of moral rectitude across a society as a whole.

Bit of a tangent I know, but let me say that I share your loss of faith in the present system. The difference is that I maintain my faith in what the system is capable of and has the potential to do. Furthermore, as a true skeptic I can tell you that you losing faith in the system is exactly what the politicians who abuse the system want (even inadvertently). The more ignorant, and partisan and divided the citizens of this country are, the easier it is for both parties to stay in power, and continue to abuse the system.

I cannot say I disagree with you on any of the above Chaos, but we probably would not see eye to eye on how to get there. In short, I feel that professionals with a bit of skill, like well myself, have a brain. We are in government employ so please let us use that brain because every situation cannot be legislated and at some point, someplace, someone has got to think. Sadly protocol and SOP deprive us of that ability to think and use our brain and use our judgement.

People not in government employ run into the same sort of things in life. I guess it is the way our society has evolved and it is a crying shame.

Chaoslord29, I am very surprised with some of your views, considering you are also a gun owner. For someone who says they have used a weapon in self-defense, it is surprising that you want to attach a corresponding criminal charge - had you needed to kill the individual.

I still don't understand how it is self-evident that increased gun ownership will yield more gun deaths. As Retribution indicated, the last agency I would trust to control firearms is the United States government. Case in point: Operation Fast and Furious.

Realize that the scope of permissible behavior within the legal system has always been larger than the scope of behavior permissible through our moral values - and many would argue that this is the societal ideal. No one likes to see anyone get murdered, but your personal view on self-defense murders going against your moral values has no obligation to be mirrored in the legal system. Many posters here, including myself, feel that many cases of self-defense murders are justified.

I still don't understand how it is self-evident that increased gun ownership will yield more gun deaths.

Simple statistics?

Increased car ownership leads to more vehicular fatalities not because people necessarily drive more erratically or try to hurt each other, but because there are simply more cars on the road. Having more guns around and available to become involved in violent situations is hardly likely to decrease gun deaths.

Even if the ratio stayed the same (X guns:Y gun deaths), increasing the number of guns would increase the linked number of gun-related incidents.

I cannot say I disagree with you on any of the above Chaos, but we probably would not see eye to eye on how to get there. In short, I feel that professionals with a bit of skill, like well myself, have a brain. We are in government employ so please let us use that brain because every situation cannot be legislated and at some point, someplace, someone has got to think. Sadly protocol and SOP deprive us of that ability to think and use our brain and use our judgement.

People not in government employ run into the same sort of things in life. I guess it is the way our society has evolved and it is a crying shame.

See, as a rule, I don't trust any given individual to exercise their judgement to even their own best interest because I feel that our society no longer values what is necessary for us to be expected to do exactly that. There's to much emphasis on material gain, and even downright anti-illectual sentiment. But I don't think it's anything particularly new and different in our generation or time or whatever, it's just the particular expression of all the usual human vices given the evolution our institutions and society has undergone.

So, what's the solution? Why hope for a better future? The Socrates complex. So long as their is someone (like me) willing to martyr themselves to poke holes in the system and hasn't given up hope, there is room for progress and change. I'm not saying I'm the next Socrates, haha, not by a long shot, but the point is that there are people like you and me out there who see the problems, and so long as we don't become apathetic and resigned to living with them, we can spark change.

Chaoslord29, I am very surprised with some of your views, considering you are also a gun owner. For someone who says they have used a weapon in self-defense, it is surprising that you want to attach a corresponding criminal charge - had you needed to kill the individual.

I still don't understand how it is self-evident that increased gun ownership will yield more gun deaths. As Retribution indicated, the last agency I would trust to control firearms is the United States government. Case in point: Operation Fast and Furious.

Realize that the scope of permissible behavior within the legal system has always been larger than the scope of behavior permissible through our moral values - and many would argue that this is the societal ideal. No one likes to see anyone get murdered, but your personal view on self-defense murders going against your moral values has no obligation to be mirrored in the legal system. Many posters here, including myself, feel that many cases of self-defense murders are justified.

I carry a small caliber weapon and only on rare occasion do I actually keep it on hand. In dealing with my own personal case, I was able to resolve the situation peacefully because my would-be assailant was armed only with a knife. If he had had a gun of his own, I doubt I would have brandished mine at all.

If I had shot him, and killed him, in all likelihood I would have plead guilty to murder and expected due leniency from the DA. In our previous debate regarding the woman on life support, I expressed my own ethical stance on murder, and while I would likely have been absolved of the crime, I feel that would in no way absolve my moral culpability for ending someone else's life.

It is self-evident in the same way that more access to drugs results in more drug use, or more people driving cars results in more accidents. In short, accidents happen, and increasing the potential for accidents does not proportionately but exponentially increases the amount of accidents which will occur. I'm not just referring here to accidental gun-deaths, but that the complexity of human behavior will invariably result in circumstances where violent impulses, criminal activity, and suicidal or fanatical tendencies will occur; and the more access to firearms there is in a society, the better the odds that the variety of factors which result in gun violence and gun-deaths will coincide.

Every mass shooting is different. Every armed robbery is different. Every gun-suicide is different. They are all of them infinitely complex circumstances unique to the experiences, perceptions, and even physiology of the person and persons involved. The only factor unique to all of them, and the only one which can actually be controlled for consistently is the presence and usage of a gun, which not only makes the violence possible, but amplifies the lethality of said circumstance in a way incomparable to any other implement of violence (weapon).

The government may not be an ideal institution for dealing with the regulation of firearms, but no less so than it is an ideal situation for dealing with say, mail. Or infrastructure. Or economic stimulation and regulation. The point is that deregulation solves nothing.

As do fists, feet, rocks, bricks, sticks, knives, cooking implements, cars and anything that moves and can be controlled by a human hand. It's funny and pithy, but it's also disingenuous to assume that the tool used is in anyway even so much as part of the cause.

This guy wanted to kill someone. He would have no matter what he had on hand. The gun just made it more successful than going and beating these kids with a stick or something.

Part of the issue with 'Self-Defense' is this perceived notion of 'right or wrong'. When your life is on the line, any sense of morality goes out the window. It's you or them. Pick one, you have NO other choice. You or Them. Go.

It is self-evident in the same way that more access to drugs results in more drug use, or more people driving cars results in more accidents. In short, accidents happen, and increasing the potential for accidents does not proportionately but exponentially increases the amount of accidents which will occur.

I am shocked that you claim to have conducted research on this topic in academic and professional settings, and yet you are assuming this as "self-evident." There are many law-abiding citizens who have never used a firearm before, and are intimidated with even handling a gun. Do you really feel that training these individuals to use a handgun (and thus increasing gun ownership) is going to have an adverse effect on pre-meditated murder? You can certainly make the case that there will be a rise in empirical net rates of murder, such as in self-defense - however, you are then placing your personal morals into this discussion.

Realize that self-defense murders are acceptable to many to many of us, even if they are not to you. If someone is walking down the street and an assailant points a gun to his head, you better believe I will have no issues with him defending himself with lethal intent. Continuing to insert your personal moral views on self-defense into the conversation detracts from the case you are making on increasing gun control legislation.

If I had shot him, and killed him, in all likelihood I would have plead guilty to murder and expected due leniency from the DA. In our previous debate regarding the woman on life support, I expressed my own ethical stance on murder, and while I would likely have been absolved of the crime, I feel that would in no way absolve my moral culpability for ending someone else's life.

If someone invades my home to steal stuff or threaten my family, if I can, that person is dead. I will kill them without any hesitation because they will have threatened MY family and home. I might have a few nightmares about it, but I'm not going to regret it and I certainly would not plead guilty to murder. I'd acknowledge what I did and the circumstances and that's about it. Any guilt? Hell no. That person lost the right to breath when he threatened me and mine. Is that hard? Yes, but I put the safety of my family before that of any threatening stranger, thief or murderer. If they are dead they aren't a threat anymore, whether it's from gunshot wounds or three feet of sword steel* through their chest, the rule is, in my house, on my land and threatening me, they are dead meat.

* and yes, I do have swords, including a longsword and shortsword right beside my desk as I speak. I'm making it and you can bet I'd use them on an assailant.

As do fists, feet, rocks, bricks, sticks, knives, cooking implements, cars and anything that moves and can be controlled by a human hand. It's funny and pithy, but it's also disingenuous to assume that the tool used is in anyway even so much as part of the cause.

This guy wanted to kill someone. He would have no matter what he had on hand. The gun just made it more successful than going and beating these kids with a stick or something.

Part of the issue with 'Self-Defense' is this perceived notion of 'right or wrong'. When your life is on the line, any sense of morality goes out the window. It's you or them. Pick one, you have NO other choice. You or Them. Go.

The difference being that a gun is a tool specifically designed and crafted and refined over hundreds of years for the purpose of ending life (in many cases, human life). It's simplistic to assume that a human being can accomplish any task purely through intent when what makes us special as animals is our use of complex and specialized tools.

The whole point is that the gun made murder in this case a matter of convenient opportunity rather than requiring any concerted effort on the part of the killer, or an opportunity for the victim to defend themselves. In other words, guns make murder possible, practical, and easy in more circumstances and more cases than it otherwise would be. You don't see that as a problem?

All the more reason that after the fact moral culpability be factored into it. Anyone in the heat of the moment is as likely to pick themselves. All I'm asking is that they then take responsibility for their actions as is consistent with civilized society founded on moral rectitude rather than be instantly exonerated based on some sort of basic fight or flight response.

I don't know if you read above, but I have been in this circumstance and I was able to exercise considerably more judgement in dealing with an armed attack than Mr. Dunn did under his own tenuous circumstances.

Furthermore, I think at this point the contradiction in your claims should be apparent:

1) First you assert that this man was intent on killing someone and would have found a way to do so no matter what. That implies that his desire to kill someone was determined and methodical to the point where he would have made creative use of whatever tools he had available on hand to accomplish his goal.

2) Then, you claim that murder in self-defense is based on the kind of snap-judgement, instinctual reaction which does not allow for the time for discernment or use of reason. This is in conflict with the idea that anyone who wants to kill is capable of the concerted reasoning necessary to use anything more complicated than a gun to kill someone.

If someone invades my home to steal stuff or threaten my family, if I can, that person is dead. I will kill them without any hesitation because they will have threatened MY family and home. I might have a few nightmares about it, but I'm not going to regret it and I certainly would not plead guilty to murder. I'd acknowledge what I did and the circumstances and that's about it. Any guilt? Hell no. That person lost the right to breath when he threatened me and mine. Is that hard? Yes, but I put the safety of my family before that of any threatening stranger, thief or murderer. If they are dead they aren't a threat anymore, whether it's from gunshot wounds or three feet of sword steel* through their chest, the rule is, in my house, on my land and threatening me, they are dead meat.

* and yes, I do have swords, including a longsword and shortsword right beside my desk as I speak. I'm making it and you can bet I'd use them on an assailant.

Rather than saying you have the right to your opinion, I'm going to ask you to morally justify your actions in such a case.

Specifically, on what basis do you assert the right to exercise absolute moral authority in the execution of another human beings life even if they are not actually threatening your own (but only your "stuff").

Chaos with all due respect you are trying to insert your morality into legality. That is akin to inserting religion into government. It simply does not work and one cannot legislate morality every time it has been tried it has exploded for example prohibition, the war on drugs, so on.

In this thorny topic I Googled trying to find some non biased statistics. Honestly they are all biased pro or con gun control. And well as I have pointed out I am biased, but one thing comes to light as I look at all of those stats. Most gun deaths are due to crime, murder, by definition one is already committing a crime therefore legality and the affect of more laws kind of goes out the window in my mind. The second cause of death is generally suicide a tragedy more complex than well just guns. And then their is accidental deaths the pro control crowds point out more guns = more deaths. The con gun control crowds point out that per capita there are fewer accidental gun deaths than lightning strikes. Sin it as you like.

At the end of the day the issue gets much more complex than "guns are bad"

There will likely be an element of morality in any law. But just like say I do not agree that one should not allow same sex marriage because church X says it is immoral. I do not believe that one should inject the morality of murder is wrong so to speak even if one is in a kill or be killed situation because in this case Chaos says it is morally wrong no matter the circumstances.

What I believe to be the best approach is to reach a common ground when it comes to laws that the majority of the populace thinks is the right thing to do in a given situation. While there is an element of morality in this one is not inflicting their own religious views, moral compunctions, what have you on the populace as a whole. Look at prohibition there was a segment that pushed through the whole drinking is evil agenda and in the end made conditions much worse than the conditions of alcoholism and the like that they had been trying to fix.

Chaos with all due respect you are trying to insert your morality into legality. That is akin to inserting religion into government. It simply does not work and one cannot legislate morality every time it has been tried it has exploded for example prohibition, the war on drugs, so on.

In this thorny topic I Googled trying to find some non biased statistics. Honestly they are all biased pro or con gun control. And well as I have pointed out I am biased, but one thing comes to light as I look at all of those stats. Most gun deaths are due to crime, murder, by definition one is already committing a crime therefore legality and the affect of more laws kind of goes out the window in my mind. The second cause of death is generally suicide a tragedy more complex than well just guns. And then their is accidental deaths the pro control crowds point out more guns = more deaths. The con gun control crowds point out that per capita there are fewer accidental gun deaths than lightning strikes. Sin it as you like.

At the end of the day the issue gets much more complex than "guns are bad"

So we should legislate purely based on legal expediency? Morality has to factor into it somewhere Retribution, or else we wouldn't have laws to begin with (or else we'd have an exceptionally cut-throat libertarian legal code). The law is meant to translate ethical ideals into practical civil standards of justice. In this case, I feel that a certain ethical standard on which we would all agree (given sufficient time and discussion) is being left by the wayside in favor of an emotional and romanticized notion of gun ownership and usage which is elemental in our culture.

For the record, I don't think guns are bad. I think guns are cool. It's why I'm a gun owner: I like target shooting, enjoy discussion about guns and shooting with my friends, and have a certain aesthetic appreciation for the weapons I own as well. I do however, recognize the moral responsibility in the ownership and use of that firearm, and I wouldn't ask anyone to hold themselves to a standard I did not believe reasonably maintainable by myself or anyone else.

I agree that non-biased statistics are hard to come by, it's one of the frustrations I've had in this field personally and professionally. Overall though, the conclusion is very much something along the lines of 'guns are bad'. But that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal. After all, alcohol and cigarettes or bad, and while I don't smoke, I love drinking more than I love shooting my gun . . . that sounds really bad taken together haha.

It's interesting that you bring up suicide though, because statistics support exactly the opposite of what you describe (and to a certain degree, gun violence in general). See, the harder you make suicide, the less people have opportunities to commit suicide quickly, easily, and perceptibly painlessly, the less people commit suicide. The hallmark study involved the old fashioned gas ovens which people would stick their heads in to suffocate. Their invention cause suicide rates to sky-rocket across nations, particularly in England, but as soon as they were phased out, suicide rates dropped back down. Same holds with putting gates and barriers on bridges to prevent people jumping off them, even if the gate is left unlocked. The biggest kicker? I'm sure you're familiar with the "gun-lock", the little safety mechanism that locks in place over a gun's trigger and must be opened with a key in order to pull the trigger? Studies have shown that people who have such devices on their guns are 10 times less likely to commit suicide using the gun, even when they are the person who holds the key.

To the best of our knowledge, suicide is the result of a fairly specific kind of downward spiral, which when broken up, does not, in fact, readily repeat. That's why suicide hotlines are so effective.

Okay, I'm stepping into this mess right off knowing that I am doing something I know is going to be bad.

First off. We don't need more gun control laws. We got enough already. Way too many in some states/cities/locations. Contradictory laws depending on some places. Laws that are not enforced or conflict with other laws. It had been pointed out, repeatedly, that gun control that bans guns only benefits those who don't obey them. Enforcement of some of the laws on the books that aren't enforced properly could have avoided SEVERAL tragedies in the past.

You have literally dozens of events that never make the media because of the proper use of firearms and training of those firearms. A 'death by cop' where the perp was kept from entering a school or the fact that a location WASN'T chosen because it wasn't 'gun free'.

Right off the bat? My take is this. You need to implement continuing education on firearms, not a 'one and done' for firearm permits. You have to re-certify/re-license so many things. Vehicles. Industry practices such as networking systems, quality assurance, professional qualifications. Why not require retesting over time for the right to bear arms?

The whole intent behind the 2nd amendment was to have a volunteer militia who could provide their own arms. Minute men. Literally reach in the gun cabinet and step out the door to fight. That means you need to do some level of training in the use of said weapon and how to fight as a soldier.

We need to enforce the laws on the books, weed out the contradictory ones, see about fixing the gaps in the current national/state policy. Problem is neither side of the issue wants to fix issues, and reform the system. It's either 'ban them all' and 'remove all laws' right now.

Neither outlook works. Neither protects us. Moderation, cooperation and reform to fix the system does, but like so many damn things we have right now.. neither side wants to blink.

As for the terrible 'stand your ground' law here in Florida. I think its' terribly flawed and needs to be reworked at a minimum. We got a mother who is in jail because she DIDN'T shoot a man while another person uses the law to justify shooting up a car full of kids in a gas station. It needs to be clarified and fixed.

Mostly though? I think a better attitude towards what a firearm requires you to do/understand is needed. There is too little respect and responsibility towards firearms these days.

Specifically, on what basis do you assert the right to exercise absolute moral authority in the execution of another human beings life even if they are not actually threatening your own (but only your "stuff").

Easy. They broke into my home/land to steal and/or threatened my family, taking what we have by the threat of violence. Honestly, even if they were just stealing, I'd -still- try to take them out. They are illegally on my property and engaging theft. If I have to wound them to get them to stop, damned straight I would do that. If they died, I'm not going to cry much about it either because of they didn't want to be hurt or killed, they should not have been stealing or threatening my family. Anyone that does that -loses- certain rights.

That being said, I would be more inclined to try and run off or capture someone if they do not threaten violence, but I will show a weapon to do that (guns, sword, knife, pitchfork, axe, bow and arrow, whatever..). If they are dumb enough to attack me, I will do my absolute best to kill them. I have the right to protect and defend my family and property from invaders and thieves. If they push it so it is lethal, so be it. It's their grave being dug, not mine (hopefully).

Quote

It's interesting that you bring up suicide though, because statistics support exactly the opposite of what you describe (and to a certain degree, gun violence in general). See, the harder you make suicide, the less people have opportunities to commit suicide quickly, easily, and perceptibly painlessly, the less people commit suicide. The hallmark study involved the old fashioned gas ovens which people would stick their heads in to suffocate. Their invention cause suicide rates to sky-rocket across nations, particularly in England, but as soon as they were phased out, suicide rates dropped back down. Same holds with putting gates and barriers on bridges to prevent people jumping off them, even if the gate is left unlocked. The biggest kicker? I'm sure you're familiar with the "gun-lock", the little safety mechanism that locks in place over a gun's trigger and must be opened with a key in order to pull the trigger? Studies have shown that people who have such devices on their guns are 10 times less likely to commit suicide using the gun, even when they are the person who holds the key.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but you seem to be implying that certain things should be done because some people might and do use them to try to kill themselves. Kind of like the; if you take away all of the guns, they can't be used to kill people, type of argument. You seem to be trying to use an approach that affects a lot more people that it would help. Guns, like anything else are just tools. Yes guns are made to kill, but so are swords and axes, spears and bows. Anything can be used to kill, all a gun allows is to do it a little faster. Plenty of people died to swords and axes and bows and spears over the millennium. Hell cars kill and maim a hell of a lot of people per year, far more than guns do, yet we still allow the automobile to exist.

Okay, I'm stepping into this mess right off knowing that I am doing something I know is going to be bad.

First off. We don't need more gun control laws. We got enough already. Way too many in some states/cities/locations. Contradictory laws depending on some places. Laws that are not enforced or conflict with other laws. It had been pointed out, repeatedly, that gun control that bans guns only benefits those who don't obey them. Enforcement of some of the laws on the books that aren't enforced properly could have avoided SEVERAL tragedies in the past.

You have literally dozens of events that never make the media because of the proper use of firearms and training of those firearms. A 'death by cop' where the perp was kept from entering a school or the fact that a location WASN'T chosen because it wasn't 'gun free'.

Right off the bat? My take is this. You need to implement continuing education on firearms, not a 'one and done' for firearm permits. You have to re-certify/re-license so many things. Vehicles. Industry practices such as networking systems, quality assurance, professional qualifications. Why not require retesting over time for the right to bear arms?

The whole intent behind the 2nd amendment was to have a volunteer militia who could provide their own arms. Minute men. Literally reach in the gun cabinet and step out the door to fight. That means you need to do some level of training in the use of said weapon and how to fight as a soldier.

We need to enforce the laws on the books, weed out the contradictory ones, see about fixing the gaps in the current national/state policy. Problem is neither side of the issue wants to fix issues, and reform the system. It's either 'ban them all' and 'remove all laws' right now.

Neither outlook works. Neither protects us. Moderation, cooperation and reform to fix the system does, but like so many damn things we have right now.. neither side wants to blink.

As for the terrible 'stand your ground' law here in Florida. I think its' terribly flawed and needs to be reworked at a minimum. We got a mother who is in jail because she DIDN'T shoot a man while another person uses the law to justify shooting up a car full of kids in a gas station. It needs to be clarified and fixed.

Mostly though? I think a better attitude towards what a firearm requires you to do/understand is needed. There is too little respect and responsibility towards firearms these days.

I can agree with much of what she said.

Side note; I have never gotten a good explanation to why the gun control laws are almost always aimed at affecting the criminal, but affect the legal gun owners far far harder. Criminals are not going to obey the law anyways.

] Easy. They broke into my home/land to steal and/or threatened my family, taking what we have by the threat of violence. Honestly, even if they were just stealing, I'd -still- try to take them out. They are illegally on my property and engaging theft. If I have to wound them to get them to stop, damned straight I would do that. If they died, I'm not going to cry much about it either because of they didn't want to be hurt or killed, they should not have been stealing or threatening my family. Anyone that does that -loses- certain rights.

That being said, I would be more inclined to try and run off or capture someone if they do not threaten violence, but I will show a weapon to do that (guns, sword, knife, pitchfork, axe, bow and arrow, whatever..). If they are dumb enough to attack me, I will do my absolute best to kill them. I have the right to protect and defend my family and property from invaders and thieves. If they push it so it is lethal, so be it. It's their grave being dug, not mine (hopefully).

See, but that's not a moral justification. Or at least, you're not appealing to any particular moral standard. You're just asserting you're right to defend your property in line with what a 19th century homesteader might when faced with outlaws or highwaymen.

Why don't you describe for me, the ideal circumstances you think a person would be justified in taking someone else's life, and why?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but you seem to be implying that certain things should be done because some people might and do use them to try to kill themselves. Kind of like the; if you take away all of the guns, they can't be used to kill people, type of argument. You seem to be trying to use an approach that affects a lot more people that it would help. Guns, like anything else are just tools. Yes guns are made to kill, but so are swords and axes, spears and bows. Anything can be used to kill, all a gun allows is to do it a little faster. Plenty of people died to swords and axes and bows and spears over the millennium. Hell cars kill and maim a hell of a lot of people per year, far more than guns do, yet we still allow the automobile to exist.

The difference is that archaic weapons are just that: archaic. They are not in common usage, production, and back when they were, it was commonplace for cities to enforce bans on wearing of weapons by all except the city-guard. Hell, the crossbow was so deadly and effective in it's day and age, there was a Pope who excommunicated anyone caught using it! More pertinent to our day and age, the point remains that vehicles are much more closely regulated and licensed than guns, and moreover their is no method of firearm continuing education.

I agree that their are plenty of misguided and ineffectual firearms laws out there, but that does not preclude the effective regulation of firearms. Just look at Japan, who at one point made effective use of flintlock firearms to the degree that you had trench warfare resembling what would not occur in Europe until the Napoleonic wars. The Japanese nobility were so afraid of the prospect of a firearm armed peasantry and what it meant to their continued power that they effectively disarmed the entire country to the point that when americans arrived a century or two later, everyone was walking around with swords again.

The reason we legislate legal gun ownership is a tighter system of legal precepts is harder for criminals to abuse. It's easier to track how they get their guns, and thus who is committing the crimes and then preventing them getting back into the hands of criminals.

So, this looks to me like a pretty open and shut case of belligerent abuse of a firearm that resulted in the death of an unarmed teenager (all racial tensions aside). Honestly I felt certain conflict over the Trayvon Martin shooting, but if the same application of the 'stand your ground' policy is applied here it would seem to me to be a blatant disregard for justice.

Now I'm not opposed to gun ownership, I just have a healthy respect for the fact that as long as people own and have access to guns, there will be wrongful gun-deaths. That's as true for police and military personnel (who receive rigorous training in the use of their weapons) as it is for civilians (who are in many cases not required to have the same). So, I feel that laws should put responsibility on the gun-owner not to let the use of their weapon cause someone else's death, in self-defense or not. Murder in self-defense to my mind is every bit as morally culpable as cold-blooded murder, even if we must necessarily distinguish it for legal purposes.

Anyway, just wanted to see what dissent, discussion my fellow writers of Elliquiy might offer on this case.

I can't help but feel that that is a hopelessly naive ideal. I don't know about anyone else here but I've been on the business end of both blades and gun barrels and if the situations hadn't dissolved peacefully (mostly because of there being too many witnesses that presented problems if they actually did the deed and they decided to flee instead), I'd be dead. Is the decision of my life over theirs even in the realm of a moral choice? I simply can't comprehend such a thing in those terms, when I remember those events and think of what it would have been like had I been in a position to turn the tables in the nick of time. A completely innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time deserves to be punished because of some fanciful idea that nobody should have to die, is what I'm kind of hearing; please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see how that could be when the circumstances are so clearly defined. Nobody thinks clearly in those situations but when they're thrust upon you and you have no choice and there is absolutely no ambiguity about the danger of the situation, this stuff just boils away and all we're left with is hindsight. Forgive me for wanting to be alive to participate in the retrospective.

In the case of this latest victim...people acting like assholes and refusing to follow basic human decency standards is a given, we can do very little about it and the guy was totally unjustified in what he did, not to mention excessive (eight shots? Really?). He THOUGHT he saw a gun, he says? Gee, I wonder why that might be, what with the adrenaline pumping through him knowing he had a gun to fall back on if he felt like his dick was suddenly shrinking just a little too much, what could possibly have caused his eyes to see an imaginary threat? Surely not racial stereotyping, either, heaven forbid. Anyway, leaving things like that to the proper authorities rarely works exactly how we want it to but I'd still rather put my faith in that than get personally involved and let things spiral out of control (I never underestimate human stupidity). What the hell would posses someone to go looking for trouble like that? If someone is breaking the law, they know goddamn well they're doing it and they don't fucking care until they see the red and blue lights, don't people understand this?

In any case, I'd be unlikely to ever carry a firearm around with me in public (not just for the obvious reasons listed above; even I don't trust myself enough with that kind of responsibility), I'd be more likely to keep it at home where I feel most in control and where there are absolutely no moral or legal gray areas in terms of me firing upon an intruder in the dark should the situation arise. I mean, it really boils down to, "are you really going to wait and ask them what the fuck they're doing in your house and, in your moment of unguarded mercy, give them a chance to either shoot you or otherwise bring harm to you or your family?" If that's your prerogative and it helps you sleep better at night to tell yourself that, be my guest; I'll be the responsible parent and not take any chances with an unwelcome potential serial killer, thanks, and I'll sleep just fine). I don't have a high enough opinion of humanity to value life in that sacred of a way and there's just plain too damn many of us as it is, so I don't lose sleep over this sort of thing unless it's someone close to me. And I've had my share of friends and family falling victim to violent crimes so the part of me that might be able to sympathize with the benefit of the doubt crowd has also died.

The very idea of civilians carrying around guns is horrifying enough, but the stuff that it leads to psychologically (sense of superiority or power, paranoia, delusional hallucinations of threats where there are none, etc.) alone should warrant it be restricted, never mind the harm wrought by the physical tool itself. By all means, carry with you a butterfly knife or whatever you have handy to deal with general threats but once you start pulling out a pistol, it's going to escalate what the other guys are bringing to the table. Enough to scare off a stalker or similarly armed mugger is more than enough, if someone's going to come at you with a handgun (or more), there's no winning in that situation even if you are armed. There's no guarantee you'll get the drop on them or at least come out with fewer holes than them. Those ugly situations I have regrettably found myself in (oh that I could only afford to move out of my shitty neighborhood) may not have been resolved by me having the means to aggressive defend myself but I sure as hell wouldn't have said no if I'd known what was about to go down and could do things differently. Would I prefer the situation not occur at all? Obviously, but as I've said, we don't live in an ideal world. Turning the other cheek just leads to someone cutting your face off and wearing it like Hannibal Lecter.

I hear many students at the college I work at talking about cases like this and that of Trayvon Martin and the sentiment is that they should therefore also be carrying weapons in case of situations like that where they want to be able to get the drop on whomever might be in a position to do the same to them. I know that's hardly self-defense what they're talking about, but rather revenge though I'd never have the nerve to point that out to them. It's just depressing that not only are there these unnecessary tragedies, but the backlash rippling through society just sets up even more consequences in the future to look forward to. An ugly world is only going to get uglier and I can't help but resent the media for blowing things like this out of proportion and creating a furor to spur the dumb and impressionable into angry and vengeful mode where they see enemies everywhere. They turn these things from actions of individuals into fuel for race wars that some of my peers seem too eager to participate in.

So we should legislate purely based on legal expediency? Morality has to factor into it somewhere Retribution, or else we wouldn't have laws to begin with (or else we'd have an exceptionally cut-throat libertarian legal code). The law is meant to translate ethical ideals into practical civil standards of justice. In this case, I feel that a certain ethical standard on which we would all agree (given sufficient time and discussion) is being left by the wayside in favor of an emotional and romanticized notion of gun ownership and usage which is elemental in our culture.

For the record, I don't think guns are bad. I think guns are cool. It's why I'm a gun owner: I like target shooting, enjoy discussion about guns and shooting with my friends, and have a certain aesthetic appreciation for the weapons I own as well. I do however, recognize the moral responsibility in the ownership and use of that firearm, and I wouldn't ask anyone to hold themselves to a standard I did not believe reasonably maintainable by myself or anyone else.

I agree that non-biased statistics are hard to come by, it's one of the frustrations I've had in this field personally and professionally. Overall though, the conclusion is very much something along the lines of 'guns are bad'. But that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal. After all, alcohol and cigarettes or bad, and while I don't smoke, I love drinking more than I love shooting my gun . . . that sounds really bad taken together haha.

It's interesting that you bring up suicide though, because statistics support exactly the opposite of what you describe (and to a certain degree, gun violence in general). See, the harder you make suicide, the less people have opportunities to commit suicide quickly, easily, and perceptibly painlessly, the less people commit suicide. The hallmark study involved the old fashioned gas ovens which people would stick their heads in to suffocate. Their invention cause suicide rates to sky-rocket across nations, particularly in England, but as soon as they were phased out, suicide rates dropped back down. Same holds with putting gates and barriers on bridges to prevent people jumping off them, even if the gate is left unlocked. The biggest kicker? I'm sure you're familiar with the "gun-lock", the little safety mechanism that locks in place over a gun's trigger and must be opened with a key in order to pull the trigger? Studies have shown that people who have such devices on their guns are 10 times less likely to commit suicide using the gun, even when they are the person who holds the key.

To the best of our knowledge, suicide is the result of a fairly specific kind of downward spiral, which when broken up, does not, in fact, readily repeat. That's why suicide hotlines are so effective.

I don't usually speak in these gun threads but I can quess this is where I offer my two sents.

As someone who has been depressed enough to be suicidal, the fact that I didn't have easy, reliable and relatively painless method to kill myself is one of the things that kept me from ever actually following through with my suicidal thoughts. Had I had a gun a three years ago or again about a year ago, I am not sure I would be here writing this.

The scariest night in my life was when I had such an opportunity and that wasn't even during the worst depressive phase I have had. It took every bit of my will power and will to live to just sleep normally and not let the carbon monoxide into the room I was sleeping alone in.

I don't usually speak in these gun threads but I can quess this is where I offer my two sents.

As someone who has been depressed enough to be suicidal, the fact that I didn't have easy, reliable and relatively painless method to kill myself is one of the things that kept me from ever actually following through with my suicidal thoughts. Had I had a gun a three years ago or again about a year ago, I am not sure I would be here writing this.

The scariest night in my life was when I had such an opportunity and that wasn't even during the worst depressive phase I have had. It took every bit of my will power and will to live to just sleep normally and not let the carbon monoxide into the room I was sleeping alone in.

As someone lucky enough not to have experienced suicidal thoughts in my life, I can only sympathize and thank you for your contribution ofDelusions. One of my greatest fears is that my own guns might be used to despite by precautions and best intentions to the plight of another, and those are the reasons I employ a very thorough gun-safe and do not regularly exercise my right to carry.

On a more objective and somewhat cynical note, I'm usually the first person to discount anecdotal evidence, but I do think in this case that the feelings of someone who did not in fact go through with suicide (but very well could have) would help to make the point. Suicide is not the only case this proves true for either, as murder-suicides and other "crimes-of-passion" while less common, have been demonstrated to be the result of similarly preventable thought processes and emotional states which are only acted upon when given a certain level of opportunity and "ease".

This is not meant to belittle the horrible emotional struggle that is often the result of these terrible crimes and incidents, and the neuro-psychological data is hardly conclusive, but given that the best success in preventing them has been restricting access to guns by even as slight a degree as an extra lock-and-key, I feel like it's one of those circumstances where the risk his hardly justifiable.

For that matter, why doesn't everyone who owns a gun for defensive purposes just own body armor? I mean, it's a question I haven't really asked myself, so I put it to you all. I don't generally carry my gun (it's a .22 caliber hold-out I keep in a sleeve pocket) for defensive purposes, but to those that do, would kevlar represent an equally feasible solution without endangering the lives of others?

I will stick with answering just this one as we wade into the deep end of the pool. I think it is pretty clear I am pro gun ownership. As I said the link I gave earlier about sums up my feelings on things and I think those who have read me before realize I could, can, and do live with some restrictions if one could count on the powers that be to make sound choices. I just do not think we can trust them and I pretty much discount arguments that go along the lines of "well in country X" because we had a little discussion in 1776 about how things should be in the US.

So how do you propose that common ground is reached without people "inserting their morality into the discussion"?

As I said there will always been an element of morality. But I think there are some broad things that most agree on. In the case in point it is that yes the fellow at the gas station is an asshole, if someone is threatening you or your family you are within your rights to send them to meet the deity of their choosing. Where I get eh iffy is when too much religion, moral code what have you enters the fray.

One can and should dictate do not drink and drive because aside from yourself you might kill someone innocent. I think that is a pretty common ground stance that most points of view can get on board with. When I get off the reservation is when we have something along the lines of "we should not have gay marriage because the bible says so." A clear insertion of religion in my opinion. The same could be said in say the Middle East in instances where women have been punished for seeking and education because in some interpretations it violates the Koran. Or on a personal level for me, I have a real ethical problem with abortion. But having said that, that is my own moral compass and I get that others do not agree with it and bluntly I would be being an asshole to try and shove that view down their throat.

Sort of like the moral majority or what have you would say it is wrong to drink, smoke, and screw. So does that mean we should make laws against it? I think that is dipping into an area where one is trying to legislate morality as I put it before. I do not think that is a place government or laws has a place. But I think there are certain standards that the majority would generally agree are parts of a functional society. Not wishing to insert too much religion into it but for descriptive purposes say when it comes to violating two of the ten commandments.

I hope I am explaining myself here because I am struggling for the right words to do so.

It's a difficult subject to nail down but you're doing a fine job of explaining your position. I think you just need to tie it back to gun control and how the fact that guns relate directly to incidents of gun-violence is not a matter for legislation especially when there's a strong and nearly universal moral principle that we can all we appeal to: "It is wrong to kill people."

My argument is that we make allowances for that principle based on the necessity of national security, times of war, law enforcement, etc. but that those same allowances cannot be made for cases of civilians defending their homes and their persons. At least, not in all cases.

but that those same allowances cannot be made for cases of civilians defending their homes and their persons. At least, not in all cases.

How I tie that in is I think if you read the majority opinion in this forum, which is by no means at all scientific, the general impression I get is that if someone is threatening you and yours you are certainly within your rights to kill them. I do not think anyone is saying "hey killing someone is fun" but that if I have to kill someone in legitimate defense of myself, my family, and my property then I do so with a clean conscious. It is not murder is the gist.

But unless I am missing your point you are saying it is murder regardless. It may be a justified murder, but it is still murder. From what I am seeing that is a moral stance you take that is not generally in line with the majority of the population. That in turn in my opinion is inserting morality into the legislative process where I feel it has no place.

Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. [...] Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.

I think you just need to tie it back to gun control and how the fact that guns relate directly to incidents of gun-violence is not a matter for legislation especially when there's a strong and nearly universal moral principle that we can all we appeal to: "It is wrong to kill people.

No, I don't think this is a strong and nearly universal moral principle we can all agree to. If someone were to threaten my family with a knife, gun, or other weapon, I would have no hesitations using lethal force, and certainly no guilt. It seems like I am not the only one, which is why it seems like you are making far too many assumptions about our shared 'morality.'

There was a news story about a man from Texas last year who shot and killed another man that was sexually assaulting his 5-year-old daughter. You really want a father like him to be behind bars? I'm grateful that the Texas state law had a clause where deadly force is authorized and justified in order to stop an aggravated sexual assault.

edit: Not shot, beat up. My mistake

In addition, I disagree with the concept of pushing more gun laws on handguns with the rationale of attempting to reduce the number of suicides. The much more obvious solution would be devote that same administrative energy and monetary investment into mental health resources for troubled individuals.

See, but that's not a moral justification. Or at least, you're not appealing to any particular moral standard. You're just asserting you're right to defend your property in line with what a 19th century homesteader might when faced with outlaws or highwaymen.

Why don't you describe for me, the ideal circumstances you think a person would be justified in taking someone else's life, and why?

Moral justification wouldn't even come into the equation. Physically threaten my family and property and I'll do my best to scrag the one who is doing it. I fail to see what morals have to do with defending home and family.

What circumstances? I thought I more or less stated those already, but here they are more clearly; physical threats to yourself, your family, home/land/property; armed robbery, home invaders, someone trying to kill you or someone else, rapists, pretty much anyone using the threat of physical force to do something illegal. If someone is willing to use force to rob/rape/assault someone, they had better be ready to die because I believe in the old adage; if you draw a gun, you'd better be prepared to kill. I extend this to any weapon. I hope I never have to do that, but at the same time I hope I can kill to defend my family. Their safety comes first and any invader/assaulter loses their right to breath air.

Quote

The difference is that archaic weapons are just that: archaic. They are not in common usage, production, and back when they were, it was commonplace for cities to enforce bans on wearing of weapons by all except the city-guard. Hell, the crossbow was so deadly and effective in it's day and age, there was a Pope who excommunicated anyone caught using it! More pertinent to our day and age, the point remains that vehicles are much more closely regulated and licensed than guns, and moreover their is no method of firearm continuing education.

I agree that their are plenty of misguided and ineffectual firearms laws out there, but that does not preclude the effective regulation of firearms. Just look at Japan, who at one point made effective use of flintlock firearms to the degree that you had trench warfare resembling what would not occur in Europe until the Napoleonic wars. The Japanese nobility were so afraid of the prospect of a firearm armed peasantry and what it meant to their continued power that they effectively disarmed the entire country to the point that when americans arrived a century or two later, everyone was walking around with swords again.

The reason we legislate legal gun ownership is a tighter system of legal precepts is harder for criminals to abuse. It's easier to track how they get their guns, and thus who is committing the crimes and then preventing them getting back into the hands of criminals.

This doesn't mean they aren't methods that can be used. Archaic or not, they are effective, as is stepping in front of a train, hanging yourself, taking pills, or as the one poster said, breathing on carbon monoxide, or any other of a hundred ways, guns just make it a little easier and faster. Vehicles also kill a LOT more people than guns do, licensed or not. People drive drunk or drugged and kill people and its the drivers that are held at fault. Not the vehicles.

There's a difference between effective gun laws and over regulation of gun laws. The balance is one that's not easy to get, but it seems like with each incident with a gun, instead of calls to enforce current gun regulations,s there is almost always calls for -more- gun regulations and laws. More gun laws is not the answer. more effective enforcement of current gun laws is more needed. And some gun laws are asinine (some of the magazine restriction laws among others).

As far as I know guns were banned in Japan when the one using them consolidated his power and clamped down so no one could threaten him or his supporters. They had what they wanted and were not about to let anyone else take it from them so all guns where banned.

No, I don't think this is a strong and nearly universal moral principle we can all agree to. If someone were to threaten my family with a knife, gun, or other weapon, I would have no hesitations using lethal force, and certainly no guilt. It seems like I am not the only one, which is why it seems like you are making far too many assumptions about our shared 'morality.'

There was a news story about a man from Texas last year who shot and killed another man that was sexually assaulting his 5-year-old daughter. You really want a father like him to be behind bars? I'm grateful that the Texas state law had a clause where deadly force is authorized and justified in order to stop an aggravated sexual assault.

In addition, I disagree with the concept of pushing more gun laws on handguns with the rationale of attempting to reduce the number of suicides. The much more obvious solution would be devote that same administrative energy and monetary investment into mental health resources for troubled individuals.

Okay, the tell me what moral principle you're applying that makes it okay for you to kill people sometimes but not others, and for other people to kill others at other times?

Is it strictly on a case by case basis? Only when you're life is reasonably threatened? Only when you believe it to be threatened?

What I'm getting at is that there is a fundamental reason why it's wrong to kill people in the first place, and that said principle is not in fact consistent with self-defense. If you're appealing to a different principle though, by all means, share and explain.

Also, stop making it sound like I want to lock people up. That guy from Texas was fully within his rights to protect his daughter, given that her rights were clearly being violated by someone else and she was without means of protecting herself. All I'm saying is that self-defense doesn't entirely justify lethal force, even if it is the most expedient solution in a given situation. I wouldn't expect him to try and reason with the pedophile, nor would I expect him to go to prison for killing the man. I do see it as important however to remember that while he had good intentions, his actions resulted in the death of another, and that he has to take moral responsibility for that. That doesn't mean jail time, it's between him and whatever ethical grounds he subscribes to, but not taking responsibility or any kind of thinking that the other man 'needed killing' is destructive in the long run to himself and to society.

While I'm all for additional resources being devoted to mental health resources, such systems are ultimately reactive and it would be even more oppressive and invasive into people's lives to enforce anything like federally mandatory mental health screening (not to mention the expense, and myriad of other issues it would present). It's my more expedient to enforce a certain degree of separation between access to a firearm and immediate risk of suicide.

I also appreciate the distinction, but most of what I'm arguing is that while there is good reason for their to be a legal distinction, there is little to no basis for a moral distinction and that has entirely different ramifications and implications for both individuals involved and legislation. I'm not saying we should start convicting everyone of murder who kills someone in self-defense, I'm just saying that if the reason for making a distinction is purely political, there's every reason it might be "tuned" to reflect a better standard of morality.

Moral justification wouldn't even come into the equation. Physically threaten my family and property and I'll do my best to scrag the one who is doing it. I fail to see what morals have to do with defending home and family.

What circumstances? I thought I more or less stated those already, but here they are more clearly; physical threats to yourself, your family, home/land/property; armed robbery, home invaders, someone trying to kill you or someone else, rapists, pretty much anyone using the threat of physical force to do something illegal. If someone is willing to use force to rob/rape/assault someone, they had better be ready to die because I believe in the old adage; if you draw a gun, you'd better be prepared to kill. I extend this to any weapon. I hope I never have to do that, but at the same time I hope I can kill to defend my family. Their safety comes first and any invader/assaulter loses their right to breath air.

What you seem to be saying is that killing is a totally amoral action for you, under those or any circumstance or any other where you feel that your person or property is being threatened with the intent of violence. Do I have that right?

This doesn't mean they aren't methods that can be used. Archaic or not, they are effective, as is stepping in front of a train, hanging yourself, taking pills, or as the one poster said, breathing on carbon monoxide, or any other of a hundred ways, guns just make it a little easier and faster. Vehicles also kill a LOT more people than guns do, licensed or not. People drive drunk or drugged and kill people and its the drivers that are held at fault. Not the vehicles.

There's a difference between effective gun laws and over regulation of gun laws. The balance is one that's not easy to get, but it seems like with each incident with a gun, instead of calls to enforce current gun regulations,s there is almost always calls for -more- gun regulations and laws. More gun laws is not the answer. more effective enforcement of current gun laws is more needed. And some gun laws are asinine (some of the magazine restriction laws among others).

As far as I know guns were banned in Japan when the one using them consolidated his power and clamped down so no one could threaten him or his supporters. They had what they wanted and were not about to let anyone else take it from them so all guns where banned.

The laws we have are being exercised ineffectually because it is such a partisan issue. I blame both sides, the gun lobby for their hardline stance with the second amendment, and the regulatory side for not actually acting in the best interest of the public and instead grandstanding and showboating. I'm calling for an overhaul of the system, not additional regulation. More effective enforcement of current gun laws will do nothing because the laws on the books were written to make politicians look good, not actually fix any problems.

What I'm getting at is that there is a fundamental reason why it's wrong to kill people in the first place, and that said principle is not in fact consistent with self-defense. If you're appealing to a different principle though, by all means, share and explain. ... I do see it as important however to remember that while he had good intentions, his actions resulted in the death of another, and that he has to take moral responsibility for that.

So then it's clear that you are pushing your moral views onto all of us. If you want to talk about gun control, I'm very interested, but please keep your personal beliefs out of this.

It is when my life, or the lives of those near and dear to me is in immediate danger, that I have no qualms using deadly force. If you don't want to kill people in self-defense, then don't do it. But don't tell me how to react if someone is pointing a gun at me. You live your life with your morals, and I will live my life with mine.

All I'm saying is that self-defense doesn't entirely justify lethal force, even if it is the most expedient solution in a given situation.

All of us know this is what you are saying - that shooting in self-defense is okay, but not to cause the death of individual. If that's your moral philosophy, then that's great, you should live your life by that. But it clearly doesn't reflect the moral views of many others - not in this thread, nor in many places in the US. Texas' law justifying deadly force in that situation is clearly supported by many constituents there.

While I'm all for additional resources being devoted to mental health resources, such systems are ultimately reactive and it would be even more oppressive and invasive into people's lives to enforce anything like federally mandatory mental health screening (not to mention the expense, and myriad of other issues it would present). It's my more expedient to enforce a certain degree of separation between access to a firearm and immediate risk of suicide.

So many things are inaccurate in this statement. Mental health resources are not purely reactive, and I never suggested federally mandated mental health screenings. Please look into the financial aspect of gun control before making baseless claims like this.

What exactly are you planning to do? Imagine this situation: A guy jumps through every single hoop you manage to put in place, and owns a handgun, but is an idiot, and doesn't keep it in his safe. His teenage son is depressed and gets his gun and shoots himself.

There was a news story about a man from Texas last year who shot and killed another man that was sexually assaulting his 5-year-old daughter. You really want a father like him to be behind bars? I'm grateful that the Texas state law had a clause where deadly force is authorized and justified in order to stop an aggravated sexual assault.

See, it's funny. All I can do is stare at that paragraph in shock and say "Yes! Of course I do! He fucking shot someone" I understand your point, Valthazar, and frankly I think our views our so divergent that we can't really discuss this. Just struck me as odd exactly how differently w see this.

So then it's clear that you are pushing your moral views onto all of us. If you want to talk about gun control, I'm very interested, but please keep your personal beliefs out of this.

It is when my life, or the lives of those near and dear to me is in immediate danger, that I have no qualms using deadly force. If you don't want to kill people in self-defense, then don't do it. But don't tell me how to react if someone is pointing a gun at me. You live your life with your morals, and I will live my life with mine.

I'm not saying we all have to hold ourselves to my moral standard, just that it's important that there be a moral standard which we can all agree on. Otherwise, morality would be relative wouldn't it? I mean, how you exercise your morality certainly effects me, especially when it involves killing other people. What if one of those people is a relative of friend of mine and the situation isn't as cut-and-dry as your flight or fight response would have you believe. We can't just all live our lives with our own morals and let other people live there's with different ones because invariably they will come into conflict. Besides, if your ethical beliefs are founded on a logical basis which anyone can understand, it should be easy to convince me of your position, right?

Quote

All of us know this is what you are saying - that shooting in self-defense is okay, but not to cause the death of individual. If that's your moral philosophy, then that's great, you should live your life by that. But it clearly doesn't reflect the moral views of many others - not in this thread, nor in many places in the US. Texas' law justifying deadly force in that situation is clearly supported by many constituents there.

Well first off, the case in question is about Florida, but just because many people believe it's right and agree with it, doesn't make it "justice". A majority decision does not make something 'good' or 'right' or 'just' it just leads to abuses of power by said majority. That's ultimately what we're talking about here, and Justice is the product of not just yours or my moral beliefs, but of a standard which best satisfies both of them and which defuses conflict between differing belief systems. The "Stand-your-ground" laws do just the opposite.

Quote

So many things are inaccurate in this statement. Mental health resources are not purely reactive, and I never suggested federally mandated mental health screenings. Please look into the financial aspect of gun control before making baseless claims like this.

What exactly are you planning to do? Imagine this situation: A guy jumps through every single hoop you manage to put in place, and owns a handgun, but is an idiot, and doesn't keep it in his safe. His teenage son is depressed and gets his gun and shoots himself.

What are you proposing?

Mental health resources are even at the best of times only available to people who are willing to seek the out or have already demonstrated some kind of verifiable mental health problem (as identified by a psychiatrist and often a court). That's reactive. You can't just walk around on the street and identify potential suicide victims or anti-social tendencies, and you certainly can't invade people's privacy to do so, which is why I deem them 'reactive', they can't do anything until a problem is recognizable, or to put it another way, they can't do anything to 'head of' the problem before it starts.

You've certainly managed to identify part of the problem though. You can't idiot-proof a gun, and invariably there will be situations that could only be prevented if the person had never owned or had access to a gun in the first place. Given that's not what I'm about to argue for, being a gun-owner myself, what I'm proposing is that those hoops exist because idiots have harder time jumping through them (or at least, they should). Not impossible, mind you, and I don't think there should be a financial burden either, since those would both violate the second amendment. Mandatory re-licensing however and continuing education are a great place to start though. Hell, compulsory service would be a big boon, but that's politically unfeasible in the US. Overall though, I would love to just see a smarter, more savvy citizenry across the board, but that's a cultural and education issue, not a gun-control issue.

See, it's funny. All I can do is stare at that paragraph in shock and say "Yes! Of course I do! He fucking shot someone" I understand your point, Valthazar, and frankly I think our views our so divergent that we can't really discuss this. Just struck me as odd exactly how differently w see this.

Actually if you read the article Val made a mistake he killed the guy with his bare hands when he punched him about the head when he found him raping his five year old daughter. I wish the man would run for president I sure as hell would vote for him.

And when I look at your point of view on it Kythia a cannot begin to explain my shock and horror that anyone could have that sort of thought process. Or maybe I am in awe I honestly do not know how to describe my feelings on this, but you are right. I know the post is directed at Val but you and I could not have a discussion on this.

Actually if you read the article Val made a mistake he killed the guy with his bare hands when he punched him about the head when he found him raping his five year old daughter. I wish the man would run for president I sure as hell would vote for him.

And when I look at your point of view on it Kythia a cannot begin to explain my shock and horror that anyone could have that sort of thought process. Or maybe I am in awe I honestly do not know how to describe my feelings on this, but you are right. I know the post is directed at Val but you and I could not have a discussion on this.

Made a mistake? Or caught me a in a clever trap showing I didn't actually read the article? Oh well, suffice to say I'm willing to entertain for sake of argument there's a similar situation somewhere out there involving a firearm.

I won't go so far as Kythia, but I do think he should be facing murder charges. Just no, you know have to spend any time in jail, because what he did is what anyone else following just about any moral standard would have done in the same circumstances. Even for all my speculation and philosophy, you won't catch me saying anything except that I would beat the man senseless, then plug him full of lead. Though I like to think that I would have the presence of mind to see to my daughter some time in between, that also means I'd have the chance to retrieve a larger caliber weapon, and if I'm already taking the time to call an ambulance and look after my daughter, I guess I might as well go the whole nine-yards and make the rapist look me in the eyes before I execute him.

Again though, I'd probably plead guilty to the killing him once the police arrived, and expect due leniency given the outrageously horrendous circumstances. It might be putting a fine point on things, but it strikes me as the most amenable solution, rather than the somewhat problematic "stand-your-ground" laws. If you kill someone, even in self-defense, take responsibility for your actions, plead guilty, apologize to any other parties who might have been wronged. It just makes sense to me, especially if you have nothing to hide.

Though, hold on, does Texas have mandatory sentencing for murder charges? Oh wait, I can get the death penalty too depending on my plea . . . Well, if that isn't a conflict of interests I don't know what is xD

I'm not saying we all have to hold ourselves to my moral standard, just that it's important that there be a moral standard which we can all agree on. Otherwise, morality would be relative wouldn't it? I mean, how you exercise your morality certainly effects me, especially when it involves killing other people.

That is because morality is relative. There are those who feel abortion is acceptable, and those who feel abortion is a sin. Are you suggesting that one of these perspectives of morality is wrong, while the other is right? It all depends on the individual, and neither group has the right to push their sense of morality onto the other, just as your view of morality on self-defense is equally as justifiable as those of many posters here.

Besides, if your ethical beliefs are founded on a logical basis which anyone can understand, it should be easy to convince me of your position, right?

I am not trying to convince you of my position. Please live your life by your own sense of morality, and whatever allows you to sleep peacefully at night. Rather than having an intelligent discussion about gun control, it is becoming increasingly clear that you are attempting to push your individual sense of morality onto others here.

Justice is the product of not just yours or my moral beliefs, but of a standard which best satisfies both of them and which defuses conflict between differing belief systems. The "Stand-your-ground" laws do just the opposite.

Currently, according to stand-your-ground, if you don't want to lethally shoot someone in self-defense, you don't have to. If I feel the need to, in self-defense, I am permitted to. How is that not permitting both of us to exercise our unique moral stance on the issue?

What you are attempting to do, by pushing for this 'universal standard of morality' is no different than those who are pro-life attempting to push their views of morality on the rest of the population.

Like I said earlier, I find it really hard to believe that you have done academic and professional research on this issue, because you are taking such an idealistic view of gun control.

Are you aware of the growing and thriving black market for firearms? The impending concerns of gun control legislation is already fueling a perfect storm in the black market sale of firearms. Honestly, even I know first hand of people who are stock-piling ammunition and AKs for the sole purpose of making illegal profit from selling them once gun control is in place.

And on another note while I cannot draw direct comparisons or come even close to calling this scientific in many places state mental hospitals have been closed on a large scale. We no longer have a tendency to keep the criminally insane institutionalized. A subject I know a little about since my late grandmother spent her career working with the criminally insane in a mental health facility. In short it costs too much and is considered to disregard the rights of those with mental illness.

But now we have people who I feel are obviously disturbed walking into crowded places and gunning down people. But apparently the firearm is the issue. That is very bitterly ironic.

In short, my stance is that murder in self defense is every bit as reprehensible as murder (aggravated, premeditated, or otherwise).

Setting aside the loaded language (murder is a legal term, if someone could satisfy the criteria needed to use a full self-defence defence then it wouldn't be murder, thus making "murder in self-defence" somewhat of a oxymoron), I still find this view somewhat confusing.

Do you really see no moral difference in the acts between say a battered wife who after years of abuse, wipes the blood away from the beating she received earlier that day, grabs a knife and stabs her abuser in her sleep and the abuser who batters his wife for years and eventually kills her? Both are generally seen as murder (although a "battered wife syndrome" partial defence has been allowed in recent years)? A physically weak woman (hell, or man) trapped under a much stronger assailant who is attempting to murder and/or rape them, manages to grab a nearby weapon (gun, knife or improvised) and kill their assailant and the assailant who murders them? Someone who see's a gunman shooting at people and tackles them before punching them as they struggle leading to their death... or the gunman shooting at people?

That seems a rather strange view to me and I'd like to see it expanded.

That is because morality is relative. There are those who feel abortion is acceptable, and those who feel abortion is a sin. Are you suggesting that one of these perspectives of morality is wrong, while the other is right? It all depends on the individual, and neither group has the right to push their sense of morality onto the other, just as your view of morality on self-defense is equally as justifiable as those of many posters here.

Oh, you're a moral relativist. That explains a lot.

You know that's a wholly untenable position right? If morality is relative, then as long as you can justify any action to yourself under any more standard you make up on the spot, you are justifiable in your actions? There's no grounds for any kind of application of law and order except is what is most politically expedient. There's no human rights except those every human makes up for themselves, and the bill of rights doesn't mean a damn thing other than it's what the government is telling you that you have to abide by because a bunch of rich white men wrote it that way however many years ago.

Quote

I am not trying to convince you of my position. Please live your life by your own sense of morality, and whatever allows you to sleep peacefully at night. Rather than having an intelligent discussion about gun control, it is becoming increasingly clear that you are attempting to push your individual sense of morality onto others here.

It just so happens that I am trying to have an intelligent discussion, just that I'm trying to have it about standards of morality. If you're a moral relativist, I understand why that might confuse you, but I was a political science and philosophy major, and meta-ethical discussion is a point of great interest to me. I can assure you that it's fully possible to have intelligent discussion on the basis of conflicting moral standards and even rectify them through the use of logic and reason. In fact, through such discussion, you'll find that the overwhelming conclusion of the academic community is that moral relativism provides no grounds for debate and is therefore self-defeating, and ultimately an expression of nihilism.

Quote

Currently, according to stand-your-ground, if you don't want to lethally shoot someone in self-defense, you don't have to. If I feel the need to, in self-defense, I am permitted to. How is that not permitting both of us to exercise our unique moral stance on the issue?

What you are attempting to do, by pushing for this 'universal standard of morality' is no different than those who are pro-life attempting to push their views of morality on the rest of the population.

Like I said earlier, I find it really hard to believe that you have done academic and professional research on this issue, because you are taking such an idealistic view of gun control.

Are you aware of the growing and thriving black market for firearms? The impending concerns of gun control legislation is already fueling a perfect storm in the black market sale of firearms. Honestly, even I know first hand of people who are stock-piling ammunition and AKs for the sole purpose of making illegal profit from selling them once gun control is in place.

Simple, because if you shoot someone under a "Stand-your-ground" context and it's one they don't agree with, then you have seriously violated their moral beliefs and will see no kind of recourse. The whole live and let live policy, only works as long as everyone is willing to play by the same rules anyway. Why is it okay for you to apply your personal standard of live and let live, but not okay for say, a sociopath to do the same? Or say, I stumble drunkenly into your home having lost my glasses, plastered all to hell and belligerent besides. Under your moral standard, and "stand-your-ground" you have every right to shoot and kill me, but according to my moral standard, I deserve consideration, and leniency. Except because you're probably going to kill me, your moral standard now reigns supreme simply by virtue of the fact that you had the gun (even though you probably could have just knocked me out in my drunken stupor and called the police without having to kill me). Under those circumstances, it's tantamount to a might-makes-right moral philosophy, which I'm sure you'll agree is totally untenable.

My academic and professional stance (not just for gun control) is that it is important that be hold ourselves and more importantly, agree upon ethical absolutes and ideals, because even though they are, practically speaking, impossible to attain, if we hold ourselves to any lesser standard, then the only real standard we have to obey is that of what is most expedient and practical to enforce, which leads to abuses of majority power and certain cases of the ends justifying the means.

My position is that even though we must, by necessity take action according to what is most practical, we must still recognize moral standards in order to maintain a coherent and morally rigorous society.

I have raised many pertinent issues regarding the growing black market for weapons given impending gun control, and the impossibility of ensuring that people are maintaining their weapons with utmost safety. Retribution also made some good points regarding the lack of mental health funding at the state level, which you have not responded to.

While I understand that meta-ethical discussion is of great interest to you, please consider the empirical fallout of this very 'academic' moral discussion you are seeking.

I am not a philosopher, but I am also not naive to the fact that different cultures and different perspectives have different concepts of morality on such matters. Would you take things seriously if someone similar to you from India started advocating that it is a sin to eat meat?

I have raised many pertinent issues regarding the growing black market for weapons given impending gun control, and the impossibility of ensuring that people are maintaining their weapons with utmost safety. Retribution also made some good points regarding the lack of mental health funding at the state level, which you have not responded to.

While I understand that meta-ethical discussion is of great interest to you, please consider the empirical fallout of this very 'academic' moral discussion you are seeking.

I am not a philosopher, but I am also not naive to the fact that different cultures and different perspectives have different concepts of morality on such matters. Would you take things seriously if someone similar to you from India started advocating that it is a sin to eat meat?

I will address them thusly, but thank you for not ignoring my own metaethical arguments completely.

I did agree that I would like to see increased funding for mental health, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a responsive form of institution and proactive maintenance of mental health starts with good education, and parenting, both of which I'm sure we're all in favor of, but are agreed it's equally hard to legislate (particular the latter, since we can't very well license folks to have kids).

In regard to the growing black market for gun control, I point out that deregulation will not fix the problem, and that what is tantamount to a black market will persist just as readily under a lack of regulation. Compared to the the illegal market for drugs, it's much easier to crack down on a firearms black market, because not just everyone can grow bullets and automatic weapons in their back yard. Confiscate firearms obtained in law enforcement raids and do not just sell them back (hell, sell them abroad for that matter). Make straw sales and gun trading a safe and legal alternative, just like cars and focus on relicensing and continuing education. Whatever you do, don't ban automatic weapons because that's not only stupid but counterproductive. At any rate, the problems of black markets and people continuing to practice unsafe firearm usage persist whether we regulate or not, but regulation is at least a step in the right direction where as a lack of regulation is just resignation to the ensuing death and mayhem which may very well spiral out of control. Is it better to piss on a fire knowing you can't put it out completely or just let the whole forest burn to the ground?

It's not naivete that fuels my upholding of moral absolutes, but a strong foundation in logic that echoes back through the ages in all spheres of political and ethical thought and practice. I would take someone from India seriously who came to me with the idea that it is morally wrong to consume meat, and in fact I have done just that engaging with debates with vegetarians in this country, out of context of religion. Would you like to hear the arguments and lines of reasoning I appeal to or is that too much of a tangent?

Also, stop making it sound like I want to lock people up. That guy from Texas was fully within his rights to protect his daughter, given that her rights were clearly being violated by someone else and she was without means of protecting herself. All I'm saying is that self-defense doesn't entirely justify lethal force, even if it is the most expedient solution in a given situation. I wouldn't expect him to try and reason with the pedophile, nor would I expect him to go to prison for killing the man. I do see it as important however to remember that while he had good intentions, his actions resulted in the death of another, and that he has to take moral responsibility for that. That doesn't mean jail time, it's between him and whatever ethical grounds he subscribes to, but not taking responsibility or any kind of thinking that the other man 'needed killing' is destructive in the long run to himself and to society.

Excuse me what?

She is being physically raped... HURT... and all you can come up with is her rights were being violated? Dude got off lucky by being beat to death in my opinion. If it had been me walking to see one of my children being raped the cops would have arrived to the sight of the man tortured to death with his genitalia in his mouth. And I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it.

Sorry you don't think anyone should be killed but there are some things that warrant death. Harm my children, threaten me or my family, break into my house... I will kill you.

And again, any gun safety class I have ever been to says the same thing: If you are going to pull the gun, aim to kill. If you are incapable of doing that, sell your gun. It is not an instrument to induce fear. It is an instrument to protect yourself, your family and your property.

She is being physically raped... HURT... and all you can come up with is her rights were being violated? Dude got off lucky by being beat to death in my opinion. If it had been me walking to see one of my children being raped the cops would have arrived to the sight of the man tortured to death with his genitalia in his mouth. And I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it.

Sorry you don't think anyone should be killed but there are some things that warrant death. Harm my children, threaten me or my family, break into my house... I will kill you.

And again, any gun safety class I have ever been to says the same thing: If you are going to pull the gun, aim to kill. If you are incapable of doing that, sell your gun. It is not an instrument to induce fear. It is an instrument to protect yourself, your family and your property.

***More coming after work***

Read my post more fully. I admitted I likely would have killed the man in question myself, and can even admit to a certain amount of satisfaction at the idea of making him look me in the eye while executing him, and only after I had first seen to it that my daughter is cared for as well as circumstances allow.

Whatever satisfaction you or I might have in exacting torture and death as vengeance however is not morally justifiable. What is good and right and just is seeing to it that the daughter is properly tended to, and has every opportunity to recover from such a horrendous experience (as much as can be).

Compared to the the illegal market for drugs, it's much easier to crack down on a firearms black market, because not just everyone can grow bullets and automatic weapons in their back yard.

No one here is advocating 'deregulation' of weapons - only that we should actually enforce the existing laws properly before creating new ones.

Again, I am not sure how you claim to have done research on gun-related issues when you make some of these statements. Have you ever been to a gun show? Do you realize how easy it is to buy guns right now? While politicians in DC talk about gun control, AKs, ARs, and ammo are flying off the tables at these gun shows - no background checks needed whatsoever.

I know people who are viewing guns as investments. They go to these gun shows, stock-pile a few assault rifles, with the intention of selling it at a premium in a few years to random people when the gun control laws are much more restrictive. Every time Piers Morgan talks about how unnecessary it is to have war weapons at home, these guys are laughing at the profits they'll get a few years from now. But who do you think is going to illegally purchase guns at that point? No way to have background checks then. It certainly won't be us law abiding citizens, because if we want to buy guns at that point, we'll have extensive background checks necessary and other hoops to jump through (as per your suggestions). It will be gangs and other criminally-minded individuals who get these guns on the rising black market.

If you don't believe me, just watch whenever gun control is in the news, the stocks for Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Alliant, etc. will all spike up. There's a huge black market brewing, and the buyers will be criminals.

You know that's a wholly untenable position right? If morality is relative, then as long as you can justify any action to yourself under any more standard you make up on the spot, you are justifiable in your actions?

That's a pretty one-sided view of moral relativism. I'd suggest that most moral relativist positions instead take an anthropological view on morality; that morality is not necessarily absolute and universal but instead may differ depending on the practices, convictions or traditions of a person (or group of persons). Therefore moral relativism does allow an action to be "wrong"... it simply doesn't apply that such an action will be "wrong" for all agents (or group of agents) who find themselves in that situation.

(On a side note, there is nothing intrinsic about moral objectivism vs relativism that makes one more secure than the other. A moral objectivist may well change the basis on how he decides what is objectively right or wrong; a hedonist who becomes a Kantian for example.)

Why don’t you describe for me, the ideal circumstances you think a person would be justified in taking someone else’s life, and why?

1. Assault with the intent to kill You can argue this one if you want, but if I am in fear of my life then I believe that the person is assaulting me with the intention of killing me. You can argue heat of the moment if you want (two drunks get in a fight outside of a bar, one clearly gets the upper hand and has his opponent down but he continues to wail on him in a drunken rage - the intention is there… to kill. Abusive spouse lays into his/her spouse. Instead of stopping after the usual few hits, they keep going to the point the spouse is desperate to protect their life - intention is to kill.) but the fact is after a certain point the other person has crossed that line and the rage is in control and the intention is to kill, not hurt.

2. Breaking and entering You come into my personal abode without my express permission then I have the right to shoot (A - see below) you. You have become a threat to me, to my family, to my peace of mind.

3. Rape. If I tell you no and you try to rape me, I am going to shoot to kill you. No ifs, no ands, no buts. (B - see below)

4. Physically/sexually harming one of my family members. If I catch you in such a situation - be it my children or one of my other family members, I will kill you. (C - see below)

A. Again - any gun safety instructor will tell you that if you are going to pull a gun then you better be prepared to use it and you do not shoot to wound. If you pull the gun and you hesitate, you set yourself up for your assailant to take your weapon from you and use it on you. If you pull the gun and you shoot to wound then you set yourself up for a whole host of problems - first and foremost being that you did not wound your assailant enough to stop them from getting the gun out of your hands and, you guessed it, using it on you. Second, you are then liable to be sued in a court of law. This is why a gun is NOT an instrument to put fear into your assailant. It is an instrument to stop the assailant from doing you or your family harm …and the best way to ensure that that assailant isn’t going to keep coming is to shoot to kill.

B. I’ve been raped. I know what it is like to be stripped of every bit of my self worth, my dignity and my pride. I, to this day, remember the taste of fear in my mouth because I was unarmed and they weren’t. I remember the helpless feeling. I am not a victim and I will never be in that position again. Ever.

C. See A.

Now then, the why of your question.

Because it is my right to protect my life and the life of my family. It is my right to protect my property. Because the moment someone crosses that line and becomes an assailant, they forfeit their right for me to consider their life. It is me or them - and every single time I am going to choose me (or my family). That is what self defense is.

And finally - as to why I said I would put a gun in my children’s hands and let them get their justice.

I do not want my children to be victims. In a scenario where one has been raped/sexually abused they have already been stripped of their sense of security, their self worth, their dignity and pride. They are, from that moment, damaged and fear will consume them. Fear that the person who did it to them will do it again. By placing the gun in their hands and letting them get their justice, they are ensured that the person who did such to them will never do it again. By letting them get their justice they are getting a measure of control back in their lives. By letting them get their justice they are learning that they are not a victim just waiting for the next assailant.

I was that victim for a long time. I cowered, I was terrified, I let it control my life to the point I married an abusive alcoholic that terrorized my life for over ten years. It took me a very long time to get to the point that I am not a victim and I’ll be damned if I ever let either of my children go through something like that.

What you seem to be saying is that killing is a totally amoral action for you, under those or any circumstance or any other where you feel that your person or property is being threatened with the intent of violence. Do I have that right?

The laws we have are being exercised ineffectually because it is such a partisan issue. I blame both sides, the gun lobby for their hardline stance with the second amendment, and the regulatory side for not actually acting in the best interest of the public and instead grandstanding and showboating. I'm calling for an overhaul of the system, not additional regulation. More effective enforcement of current gun laws will do nothing because the laws on the books were written to make politicians look good, not actually fix any problems.

Morality isn't an issue when it comes to the defense of my home and family. As Val said, when they are threatened, lethal force will be used to defend them. Why is that a moral problem?

I agree that the laws are ineffective. It's a screw up on several sides. The gun lobby has legitimate complaints about the gun control people who would take away every one's guns if they could, all in the name of gun safety. So given a side to chose, I'm more inclined to go with the gun lobby who will at least fight for Constitutional rights.

Quote

You know that's a wholly untenable position right? If morality is relative, then as long as you can justify any action to yourself under any more standard you make up on the spot, you are justifiable in your actions? There's no grounds for any kind of application of law and order except is what is most politically expedient. There's no human rights except those every human makes up for themselves, and the bill of rights doesn't mean a damn thing other than it's what the government is telling you that you have to abide by because a bunch of rich white men wrote it that way however many years ago./quote]

The thing is, many morals run into problems with the law. Morals cannot be the sole determiner of what is right and what isn't, especially when morals are different for every person.

Morality isn't an issue when it comes to the defense of my home and family. As Val said, when they are threatened, lethal force will be used to defend them. Why is that a moral problem?

As a first point, I think it's worth noting the nuance in chaoslord's argument. It's in essence that killing is always a moral wrong and that should be kept in mind... but not that there aren't also morally right reasons that may lead someone to kill. In his view those reasons don't impact on the morality of the killing itself. It's a moral value theory which either separates out the moral acts (and thus their values) or views moral value as being non-transitive.

At the risk of over-simplifying or putting words in chaoslord's mouth, it comes across to me as a theory that views killing as a last resort and even then a necessary evil; circumstances may dictate that it is reasonable or even necessary but it is still an evil.

That somewhat plays into my point/response where I can see a moral problem with killing in defence of the home. Stepping away from a deep metaphysical argument for a moment I don't think that too many people would have an issue when someone breaks into your home and makes you fear for your life. But if someone breaks into the home and is then in the process of running away when they are, to use the gun example which prevails in this discussion, shot? I can certainly see the moral issues where in a situation where someone is in no fear of personal harm (let alone in fear of their life) and the intruder is retreating (but still within the home), and the person kills the intruder. Yet would that not count as defence of the home? What if they were retreating but with some of the person's property?

Okay my last post here. But I think we can all agree in broad terms that killing is wrong. While I have never killed a human being I think a really broad application of this statement is what Chaos is is discussing. I find the implication that one must evaluate such a broad statement in the light of self defense ludicrous. It is a heated situation and if I say say found someone raping my daughter I doubt I would shoot them. Some things are personal and with a tip of the hat to those of the other gender they should be man to man so make it hand to hand. Of course I am also a MMA instructor of sorts so I digress.

Once imminent mortal danger is removed differing people will have differing stances on the "right" course of action. But when there is that imminent danger I doubt anyone has the time for philosophical debate. In short I think the meat of such an argument has more of a place in the class room than in reality. And that is the real problem with idealistic stances when it comes to about anything. I suppose they would work if everyone held themselves to such high moral standards. Thinking that even the majority of people do is a mistake and doomed to failure. It is a comparison of apples and oranges because I think most of us agree the fellow in the original article is and was out of line but comparing it in broad terms as wrong to kill in self defense regardless is simply naive.

As a first point, I think it's worth noting the nuance in chaoslord's argument. It's in essence that killing is always a moral wrong and that should be kept in mind... but not that there aren't also morally right reasons that may lead someone to kill. In his view those reasons don't impact on the morality of the killing itself. It's a moral value theory which either separates out the moral acts (and thus their values) or views moral value as being non-transitive.

At the risk of over-simplifying or putting words in chaoslord's mouth, it comes across to me as a theory that views killing as a last resort and even then a necessary evil; circumstances may dictate that it is reasonable or even necessary but it is still an evil.

That somewhat plays into my point/response where I can see a moral problem with killing in defence of the home. Stepping away from a deep metaphysical argument for a moment I don't think that too many people would have an issue when someone breaks into your home and makes you fear for your life. But if someone breaks into the home and is then in the process of running away when they are, to use the gun example which prevails in this discussion, shot? I can certainly see the moral issues where in a situation where someone is in no fear of personal harm (let alone in fear of their life) and the intruder is retreating (but still within the home), and the person kills the intruder. Yet would that not count as defence of the home? What if they were retreating but with some of the person's property?

But isn't that the entire point of morals? To determine what is right or wrong?

I can agree with that, but I disagree with chaoslord's stance that killing in self defense is morally wrong. He seems to be literally equating it with the same cold blooded murder done by a serial murderer (correct me if I am wrong though) and saying that it is as morally bad. To me and others it isn't. Not by a long shot. Sometimes killing is justified, as in the conditions already laid out by me and Val and Retribution and IO (and they put it more elegantly than I do). At those times, legally or morally, people don't find very much wrong with it, and as has been pointed out, there is justified homicide. If something like that happened, I wouldn't have time to have a metaphysical conversation with myself, it would very likely be kill or be killed, protect myself/family/home. Any doubts would come after it was over.

Morals alone do not say what is right or wrong simply because everyone's morals are different. That's what laws are for so people know where they stand legally.

Morals alone do not say what is right or wrong simply because everyone's morals are different. That's what laws are for so people know where they stand legally.

But laws don't dictate what's right or wrong; they dictate was it legal and illegal. At times the two may coincide but there's no guarantee of that. I'd suggest that many... and possibly even the majority... of laws have very little if anything to do with what is "right" or "wrong".

But laws don't dictate what's right or wrong; they dictate was it legal and illegal. At times the two may coincide but there's no guarantee of that. I'd suggest that many... and possibly even the majority... of laws have very little if anything to do with what is "right" or "wrong".

And that is a great thing that the laws do not reflect one linear perspective of morality. More often than not, the extent of permissible behavior under the law is wider than the extent of permissible behavior under any one particular moral interpretation. In other words, all of us may agree that it is morally unjust to be a jerk and curse someone out, but such behavior may not be illegal. In the same manner, I may not feel that abortion is suited for my personal life, but I am not trying to push this moral view onto others, let alone modify the law.

To chaoslord29: Instead of dismissing the moral relativist stance that many posters here are holding as a "wholly untenable position," realize that it is one of the few ways to unify a country of diverse and varying perspectives.

But laws don't dictate what's right or wrong; they dictate was it legal and illegal. At times the two may coincide but there's no guarantee of that. I'd suggest that many... and possibly even the majority... of laws have very little if anything to do with what is "right" or "wrong".

Laws can also dictate what is right and wrong. As has been pointed out, morals differ for everyone, what is moral for one person isn't for another. Laws can dictate what is legal and what isn't as well as what is right and what is wrong. An example is slavery. For a very long time, slavery was morally accepted and legal in many nations (early slavery, not all of it but some of it mind you, could be more of an indentured servitude rather than the slavery that existed in the 17-19th centuries). Obviously for the South, it was believed to be a morally acceptable thing, yet in the North it wasn't moral so it took a bloody civil war to decide the issue. Just like the law is needed to decide when it is allowable to kill and when it isn't, sometimes it is also morally right to kill.

I do not disagree that laws can reflect someone's views of right and wrong and a general theory of criminal law is that it is a way to dictate society's disapproval of certain actions, but the idea that the law "creates" right and wrong (and if it dictates that, it must also create it) seems utterly baseless to me.

The first objection is how am I meant to determine which laws dictate right and wrong and which don't? You've suggested the laws which cover murder and slavery as examples of those which dictate right and wrong but what separates such laws from those which govern which side of the road we drive on?

It also seems that argument leads to some pretty repugnant situations. To argue that the law dictates right and wrong (as opposed to morality) is to say that the reason slavery is wrong isn't due to the moral issues about human rights, freedom or the like but instead because a law says it's wrong. If the law didn't exist or was repealed then slavery would thus become "right".

It also seems to me that if the theory that law dictates right and wrong was true then the question of whether it is "right" to follow a "wrong" law becomes nonsensical; if the law is the arbiter of right and wrong then it is impossible to conceive a situation where there can even be an objection to a "wrong" law (a law cannot be "wrong" as it is the law which dictates right and wrong). I do not agree; there certainly can be a debate about whether there is a (moral) duty to follow a law but that comes from other (moral) reasons.

That also touches on civil disobedience. While there have again been extensive debates about the moral character of civil disobedience, if the law dictates right and wrong then such debate becomes meaningless; as the law dictates right and wrong it is impossible for acts of civil disobedience to be "right" as they inherently involve breaking the law (and are thus "wrong").

I'd also ask where the laws that supposedly dictate what is right or wrong come from? To take the slavery example, slavery was made illegal. Why was it made illegal? If morality does not determine "right" from "wrong" then what was the source of the arguments against slavery?

Again, laws simple dictate what is legal or illegal. It may be that the law are set up to reflect what society believes is right or wrong (although if the law dictates right and wrong then that position also becomes untenable) but that does not make them the arbiters of what is right or wrong.

I do not disagree that laws can reflect someone's views of right and wrong and a general theory of criminal law is that it is a way to dictate society's disapproval of certain actions, but the idea that the law "creates" right and wrong (and if it dictates that, it must also create it) seems utterly baseless to me.

The first objection is how am I meant to determine which laws dictate right and wrong and which don't? You've suggested the laws which cover murder and slavery as examples of those which dictate right and wrong but what separates such laws from those which govern which side of the road we drive on?

It also seems that argument leads to some pretty repugnant situations. To argue that the law dictates right and wrong (as opposed to morality) is to say that the reason slavery is wrong isn't due to the moral issues about human rights, freedom or the like but instead because a law says it's wrong. If the law didn't exist or was repealed then slavery would thus become "right".

It also seems to me that if the theory that law dictates right and wrong was true then the question of whether it is "right" to follow a "wrong" law becomes nonsensical; if the law is the arbiter of right and wrong then it is impossible to conceive a situation where there can even be an objection to a "wrong" law (a law cannot be "wrong" as it is the law which dictates right and wrong). I do not agree; there certainly can be a debate about whether there is a (moral) duty to follow a law but that comes from other (moral) reasons.

That also touches on civil disobedience. While there have again been extensive debates about the moral character of civil disobedience, if the law dictates right and wrong then such debate becomes meaningless; as the law dictates right and wrong it is impossible for acts of civil disobedience to be "right" as they inherently involve breaking the law (and are thus "wrong").

I'd also ask where the laws that supposedly dictate what is right or wrong come from? To take the slavery example, slavery was made illegal. Why was it made illegal? If morality does not determine "right" from "wrong" then what was the source of the arguments against slavery?

Again, laws simple dictate what is legal or illegal. It may be that the law are set up to reflect what society believes is right or wrong (although if the law dictates right and wrong then that position also becomes untenable) but that does not make them the arbiters of what is right or wrong.

How can you even ask that? Laws dictate what society finds right and wrong. It puts limits on what is allowed. This isn't to say that morals cannot and do not influence what laws are voted on and enforced, but the law is what dictates what is -culturally- acceptable. The laws constitute what is legally right and wrong. It cannot and should not be concerned with morals or ethics. The phrase; 'justice is blind' is an important one to remember when you're dealing with laws that govern a nation that is a mix of hundreds of cultures and nationalities from immigrants. To be able to have a functioning society, the laws have to be the things that decide what is right and wrong for the society to work.

Others here can put it on more clear terms than I can, so apologies if I'm not being clear.

Others here can put it on more clear terms than I can, so apologies if I'm not being clear.

consortium11, I think what Zakharra is trying to say (and please forgive me, if I am misinterpreting) is that the American legal system in its truest sense, does not attempt to emulate the individual moralities of any single constituency. You do make a reasonable point that to at least some degree, the law is developed through our shared sense of morality. However, the legal system tends to encompass very basic, fundamental moral principles that tend to be shared by a vast majority of the population, and tend to be much more behaviorally permissive as compared to any individual group or individual's sense of morality.

For example, on a fundamental level, we can all agree that premeditated murder is morally unjust, and thus, this basic sense of shared 'morality' (if you would like to use this term here) is implemented in the law.

However, with regard to the issue being discussed in this thread, this unanimity of moral opinion is not present. Several posters so far, including myself, seem to feel that it is perfectly within their moral judgment to utilize lethal force in self-defense when it comes to a violent, confrontational situation. Contrary to what chaoslord29 indicated, his moral opinions are by no means a prevalent moral viewpoint among Americans, and thus, do not suggest the need for modification of the law.

Some laws may reflect what society finds right and wrong but they do not dictate it. If they dictated it then society would not have found them right or wrong prior to them becoming laws... and that seems to me to be an incoherent position.

This isn't to say that morals cannot and do not influence what laws are voted on and enforced, but the law is what dictates what is -culturally- acceptable.

I think this may be a somewhat loose definition of culturally acceptable. There are many things that are considered unacceptable in certain cultures that are not illegal. And I'm not sure I can agree that it is the law that determines a culture and what is acceptable within it.

This is a pretty controversial position, and one that's only really gained prominence in the last 200 years or so. To give a very simple example, the US Constitution expressly sets out that it (and everything that comes from it) is based on morality and ethics. The entire theory of natural law (which has been considered the basis of law for most of human history) is based on the idea that the law and morality are intrinsically linked. Even legal positivism, the opposite position, generally accepts that the basis of legal systems has to be from a moral stand point.

To further this point, why is murder illegal? And why is self-defence allowed? I would argue the reasons are moral and ethical; they are the very basis for those laws. They predate the law and the law reflects them

So at points where the majority of Americans saw no issue with slavery there was no need for an adjustment of that law? I think you're rapidly heading towards a tyranny of the majority there.

I am not making any commentary on whether adjustment of the law is necessary or unnecessary, based on our individual sense of morality. I am simply suggesting that it is usually when a growing and rising segment of the population begin to hold moral opinions that differ from the status quo, that the push for legal modifications come about.

When it comes to social justice matters (women's suffrage, abolition of slavery, etc.), where certain segments of the population were actively prevented from representation, I certainly agree that this 'prevalence of opinion' concept becomes murky. But even in these situations, at least a small and growing number of sympathizers among the dominant group towards the repressed group is necessary to alter such laws. For example, segregation would never have ended in the United States had several Caucasian-Americans (as members of the dominant racial group at the time), not voiced their moral criticism of Jim Crow laws. In addition, whether feminists would like to acknowledge it or not, the work of a small yet drastically growing number of influential men over the 20th century, have been critical to the success of the women's rights movement.

My point is that it is inaccurate to suggest that chaoslord29's perspectives are a "growing" perspective in the United States. There are many Americans, like myself, who feel very strongly on this issue, and if anything, this 2011 Gallup survey shows that gun-ownership in the US is at its highest levels since 1993. It is irresponsible policy to permit someone to use a firearm in self-defense, and then criminalize them for the corresponding death, especially when using poor technique while aiming can often be even more risky for others in the vicinity.

My point is that it is inaccurate to suggest that chaoslord29's perspectives are a "growing" perspective in the United States. There are many Americans, like myself, who feel very strongly on this issue, and if anything, this 2011 Gallup survey shows that gun-ownership in the US is at its highest levels since 1993.

While I was trying to find data regarding a correlation between guns per capita and gun deaths per capita (not as easy as it sounds - everyone seems to want to give the 'gun deaths' statistic as a raw number), I discovered that there are more guns in civilian hands than there are civilians (roughly 101 guns per 100 people).

It is irresponsible policy to permit someone to use a firearm in self-defense, and then criminalize them for the corresponding death

LOL, I agree totally but I imagine we'd draw radically different conclusions from that premise.

I keep returning to that article you posted and commented favourably on post correction. See, at some point in that attack, the father stopped beating up "the person sexually molesting his daughter" and started beating up "the person who had been sexually molesting his daughter" - unless, I suppose, the deceased was the most single minded molester in history. And even if we allow "self-defence" to include protecting one's family, which I have little argument with, once that point was reached what you have there is revenge. He should be in jail.

The point is, "self defence" isn't entirely what anyone is talking about. If I jump out of an alley at you and point a gun, and you shoot me dead, I simply don't see how that is self-defence. I haven't done anything at that stage beyond frighten you. Burglary doesn't carry the death penalty, unless the home-owner has a gun and is willing to use it. There's no justice at all there, just civilians taking life and death matters into their own hands with no oversight or training.

I keep returning to that article you posted and commented favourably on post correction. See, at some point in that attack, the father stopped beating up "the person sexually molesting his daughter" and started beating up "the person who had been sexually molesting his daughter" - unless, I suppose, the deceased was the most single minded molester in history. And even if we allow "self-defence" to include protecting one's family, which I have little argument with, once that point was reached what you have there is revenge. He should be in jail.

It seems that you are taking a very simplistic, and perhaps even theoretical, perspective on this. A criminal does not suddenly jolt into a rational mindset and stop his actions upon being inflicted with a first, 'self-defense' blow to the head (or in this case, father-defending-daughter defense blow).

In the case of that father, what likely happened is that he witnessed this man molesting his daughter, so he punched him in the head. At that point, the molester likely was acting in "his own" self-defense, and readied his own fist to return a punch. To avoid such a situation, the father probably continued to beat up the man, which ultimately led to his death.

There is simply no way to call the police department for a 'lawful' arrest in that short period of time. You are correct, this would be the "ideal" in a theoretical sense, but in practicality, this is not feasible.

The point is, "self defence" isn't entirely what anyone is talking about. If I jump out of an alley at you and point a gun, and you shoot me dead, I simply don't see how that is self-defence. I haven't done anything at that stage beyond frighten you. Burglary doesn't carry the death penalty, unless the home-owner has a gun and is willing to use it. There's no justice at all there, just civilians taking life and death matters into their own hands with no oversight or training.

Everything you are saying is theoretically correct, if we were observers of an incident, and we know the intentions/motivations of all parties involved. But if someone is pointing a gun at my head, there is no time to have this sort of analytical discussion on his potential intentions. I have to fear the worst for my safety, and whomever I am with, because if I don't, a bullet will instantly kill me on the spot.

The way I see it, no one in their right mind would attempt to point a firearm of any kind at my head in public, unless they had deadly intentions. It is not a toy, it is a lethal weapon, and should be used responsibly.

That is why some of these pranksters on YouTube are really asking for something tragic with some of their 'extreme' scare pranks. If they had some sensibility, they would exercise more caution.

You know what? I don't blame the father. I personally think he deserves a medal. He defended his child - he removed a threat to his child. He did what any decent father would have done (or mother for that matter). If you think he deserves to be in jail then I have to wonder what you think the father should have done. See the man raping his daughter, turn around, go call the cops and wait for the cops to arrive and stop him? Would that make it perfectly okay then for the cops to shoot the man despite the fact that the father, by that point, allowed the man to continue harming his child?

You are wanting this shit to be clear cut and precise with no thought for the human emotion. I cannot make it any clearer than this: If you try to kill me, I am going to do my best to kill you. If you break into my house, kiss your ass goodbye, I will kill you. If you harm a hair upon my children's head, I WILL kill you.

Your rights to do whatever the hell you want ends the moment they conflict with my interests to survive, protect my family and what belongs to me.

It seems your argument is "people act without knowing all the facts and jump to sometimes incorrect conclusions, therefore they should be allowed to shoot people"

In the US, no one in their right mind points a weapon at someone, unless there is a sinister intention, or you have instigated some form of threat (though nothing surprises me anymore). If it is a kid that is doing that, his or her parents have failed at teaching them about the responsibility that comes with owning a gun.

People don't realize that these are instruments of lethal potential, and thus, its use should not be taken lightly. If someone chooses to point a weapon at me, I have every reason to believe they are getting ready to fire a bullet. I would rather my family members be alive, than attempt to be some kind of martyr for an ethical principle that belongs in a college classroom.

You know what? I don't blame the father. I personally think he deserves a medal. He defended his child - he removed a threat to his child. He did what any decent father would have done (or mother for that matter). If you think he deserves to be in jail then I have to wonder what you think the father should have done. See the man raping his daughter, turn around, go call the cops and wait for the cops to arrive and stop him? Would that make it perfectly okay then for the cops to shoot the man despite the fact that the father, by that point, allowed the man to continue harming his child?

He removed a threat to his child, and then - once it was no longer an immediate threat to his child - beat it to death. He killed someone who had once harmed him and his. He couldn't have knocked the guy out? He couldn't have got his presumably terrified daughter to safety rather than carrying on his revenge?

Quote

You are wanting this shit to be clear cut and precise with no thought for the human emotion. I cannot make it any clearer than this: If you try to kill me, I am going to do my best to kill you. If you break into my house, kiss your ass goodbye, I will kill you. If you harm a hair upon my children's head, I WILL kill you.

Errrm, I should probably make clear that I'm not planning on killing you. That was a little vehement there.

Regardless. Human emotion is unavoidable. What I AM wanting is for the law to be clear cut and precise. Temporary insanity is a thing, over here at least, and I misspoke slightly when I said he should be in jail. Whether he is in jail or not should be left to the legal system and a jury of his peers. Not to people shrugging and saying "Sure. Dick deserved to die. Seems fine to me"

In the US, no one in their right mind points a weapon at someone, unless there is a sinister intention, or you have instigated some form of threat (though nothing surprises me anymore). If it is a kid that is doing that, his or her parents have failed at teaching them about the responsibility that comes with owning a gun.

People don't realize that these are instruments of lethal potential, and thus, its use should not be taken lightly. If someone chooses to point a weapon at me, I have every reason to believe they are getting ready to fire a bullet. I would rather my family members be alive, than attempt to be some kind of martyr for an ethical principle that belongs in a college classroom.

And you honestly see nothing wrong with that state of affairs? You continue to think people should have guns accepting that that is the price to pay? I don't think we are gonna find common ground here. Always a pleasure talking to you though.

In the US, no one in their right mind points a weapon at someone, unless there is a sinister intention, or you have instigated some form of threat (though nothing surprises me anymore). If it is a kid that is doing that, his or her parents have failed at teaching them about the responsibility that comes with owning a gun.

People don't realize that these are instruments of lethal potential, and thus, its use should not be taken lightly. If someone chooses to point a weapon at me, I have every reason to believe they are getting ready to fire a bullet. I would rather my family members be alive, than attempt to be some kind of martyr for an ethical principle that belongs in a college classroom.

Bolded for the part I want to discuss.

I think you are wrong about that statement. I think everyone knows they are instruments of lethal potential (unless we discuss very young children - talking toddlers here - who cannot understand the concept of lethal potential) but I think that there are idiots the world over who, while knowing this, still do not care. Hence why you have the facebook pictures of kids holding guns to infants' heads. They know it is dangerous but they are also thinking the picture will look cool. Again - idiots.

You are correct with the rest of your post though. If someone pulls a gun and points it at me while I am out in public, then the only logical reason is going to be because they are going to kill me. I am most certainly not going to stop and say "Hey, I've got a question. Are you pointing that at me because you plan to shoot me or are you pointing that at me because it makes you feel cool? Like you have big balls?" Hell no. I'm going to react what, logical, is a threat to my life.

I don't see how you can talk in one paragraph about people not respecting guns and so forth and then, in the very next one, claim the only logical reason for someone pointing a gun at you is that they're going to shoot you.

He removed a threat to his child, and then - once it was no longer an immediate threat to his child - beat it to death. He killed someone who had once harmed him and his. He couldn't have knocked the guy out? He couldn't have got his presumably terrified daughter to safety rather than carrying on his revenge?

Errrm, I should probably make clear that I'm not planning on killing you. That was a little vehement there.

Regardless. Human emotion is unavoidable. What I AM wanting is for the law to be clear cut and precise. Temporary insanity is a thing, over here at least, and I misspoke slightly when I said he should be in jail. Whether he is in jail or not should be left to the legal system and a jury of his peers. Not to people shrugging and saying "Sure. Dick deserved to die. Seems fine to me"

And you honestly see nothing wrong with that state of affairs? You continue to think people should have guns accepting that that is the price to pay? I don't think we are gonna find common ground here. Always a pleasure talking to you though.

Don't know about where you live but it is routine for sex offenders to be released back in public. I am not a fan of this unless they are chemically castrated, and even then I do not feel the safest with it. Personally, I think if the sex offense is rape (of an adult or child) or the molestation of a child, the person should either be sentenced to life in a prison camp or execution.

So, let's say he just knocks the guy out. Cops haul him to jail. He goes in front of the court. He gets ten years with possibility of parole. In six years he is released for good behavior. Guess what threat to this man's child is back out on the streets. He didn't remove the threat after all.

I don't see how you can talk in one paragraph about people not respecting guns and so forth and then, in the very next one, claim the only logical reason for someone pointing a gun at you is that they're going to shoot you.

By all means then. Tell me why you would pull a gun on me if it were not to kill me. If the answer is anything but "to kill" then you do not need to ever be around guns because you do not understand the reason for them.

Don't know about where you live but it is routine for sex offenders to be released back in public. I am not a fan of this unless they are chemically castrated, and even then I do not feel the safest with it. Personally, I think if the sex offense is rape (of an adult or child) or the molestation of a child, the person should either be sentenced to life in a prison camp or execution.

So, let's say he just knocks the guy out. Cops haul him to jail. He goes in front of the court. He gets ten years with possibility of parole. In six years he is released for good behavior. Guess what threat to this man's child is back out on the streets. He didn't remove the threat after all.

He removed a threat to his child, and then - once it was no longer an immediate threat to his child - beat it to death. He killed someone who had once harmed him and his. He couldn't have knocked the guy out? He couldn't have got his presumably terrified daughter to safety rather than carrying on his revenge?

Read what I said earlier regarding the likely course of events. The father was probably continuing to act in self-defense.

By all means then. Tell me why you would pull a gun on me if it were not to kill me. If the answer is anything but "to kill" then you do not need to ever be around guns because you do not understand the reason for them.

While I was trying to find data regarding a correlation between guns per capita and gun deaths per capita (not as easy as it sounds - everyone seems to want to give the 'gun deaths' statistic as a raw number), I discovered that there are more guns in civilian hands than there are civilians (roughly 101 guns per 100 people).

It's horrendously out of date but I guess you mean something like this

I while I can't find or remember the exact figures, if you add the populations of Germany, UK, Austraila, France, New Zealand (and maybe a couple other countries) you end up with a population roughly the size of the US but they all have strict gun controls. But those nations combine have mabye 5% of the rate of gun deaths as in the US. Which means one of two things; either gun controls really do work or if you believe the US gun lobby in that gun laws won't stop the killings, then what they are actually saying is that the US population is naturally homicidal.

It seems your argument is "people act without knowing all the facts and jump to sometimes incorrect conclusions, therefore they should be allowed to shoot people"

I just wanted to add that in the USA, there are a lot of laws that vary from state to state involving brandishing or improper exhibition of a firearm--just about every state agrees that it's not okay. This article talks about that a bit, mostly with a Florida focus, but other states are mentioned in the article. It's important to remember that in the USA, brandishing a firearm can legally be construed as a threat to a person's life and safety, so....yes, if a person is brandishing a gun at someone, the person getting a gun waved at them does have a logical reason to fear that the other person is threatening to use deadly force on them. Just thought I'd put that here after reading some of the thread.

On topic to the thread, with this firearm info in mind: just because a person "thinks" they see a gun is not a reason to shoot. One needs to know there is a weapon. Just thinking that there "might" be a gun is not a valid excuse.

(Not going to comment on the fellow who killed the man he caught molesting his daughter--I'm not seeing that as relevant to this thread's original topic).

Ok, going to use Australia here since it is the country I found the information on.

When Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns (they spent 500 million in purchasing and destroying more than 631,000 banned guns) the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.

Home invasions increased by 21%.

Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.

Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

So, what did Australia do? Why, they disarmed the populace and made it easier and safer for criminals.

Ok, going to use Australia here since it is the country I found the information on.

When Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns (they spent 500 million in purchasing and destroying more than 631,000 banned guns) the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.

Home invasions increased by 21%.

Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.

Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

So, what did Australia do? Why, they disarmed the populace and made it easier and safer for criminals.

As an anecdotal point - the institution that I work for is unfortunately located in an area of the city that has notoriously high crime rates and gang activity. In an effort to make our institution 'safer,' the public safety administration decided to make the area of our facility a 'gun-free-zone' - a term that is expansive enough to preclude carrying other weapons as well. I can't tell you how many times we get notified now of crimes taking place in the area of our institution, now that the criminals know that this is an area of middle-to-upper class individuals, who have no form of defense.

Ok, going to use Australia here since it is the country I found the information on.

When Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns (they spent 500 million in purchasing and destroying more than 631,000 banned guns) the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

The Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) has released the National Armed Robbery Monitoring Program (NARMP) report covering calendar years 2009-10

Nationally, armed robbery continues to decrease. In 2003, the rate of armed robbery victimisation was 33 persons per 100,000, whereas the rate was calculated at 18 persons per 100,000 in 2010.

In raw figures, victim numbers fell from 8,865 in 2003 to 5,713 in 2010 - a 36 percent decrease. The number of incidents in which these victims were involved has also decreased over time, with a 24 percent decrease from 6,640 robberies in 2006 to a low of 5,022 in 2010.

Also using % changes is a very bad way to measure these things, that 19% increase murders commited using firearms could mean that the national rate has gone up from 5 deaths a year to 6 deaths a year http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Some laws may reflect what society finds right and wrong but they do not dictate it. If they dictated it then society would not have found them right or wrong prior to them becoming laws... and that seems to me to be an incoherent position.

I think this may be a somewhat loose definition of culturally acceptable. There are many things that are considered unacceptable in certain cultures that are not illegal. And I'm not sure I can agree that it is the law that determines a culture and what is acceptable within it.

This I agree with utterly. However I view the law in and of itself meaning this and nothing more.

This is a pretty controversial position, and one that's only really gained prominence in the last 200 years or so. To give a very simple example, the US Constitution expressly sets out that it (and everything that comes from it) is based on morality and ethics. The entire theory of natural law (which has been considered the basis of law for most of human history) is based on the idea that the law and morality are intrinsically linked. Even legal positivism, the opposite position, generally accepts that the basis of legal systems has to be from a moral stand point.

To further this point, why is murder illegal? And why is self-defence allowed? I would argue the reasons are moral and ethical; they are the very basis for those laws. They predate the law and the law reflects them

Val covers this more eloquently than I do, but I will answer the last questions you asked. Why is murder illegal? And why is self-defence allowed? For murder, there is no real acceptable reason to do so, you would be the one killing someone else because of greed, anger, because you want to, jealousy, any number of reasons. Killing in self defense is allowed because you are actively trying to preserve -you- life, or that of your family/friends/nation. You are trying to stop someone from killing you or taking your possessions. That's the difference at the base of it. Murder is the unlawful taking of life, self defense is the preservation of life. From there is gets murky when you get into circumstances and situations and bringing in of differing morals and ethics.

It seems your argument is "people act without knowing all the facts and jump to sometimes incorrect conclusions, therefore they should be allowed to shoot people"

Look at it this way; people act upon the information they have. In a situation when the adrenalin is pumping, your body is primed to act/react. The fight or flight response. If someone has a gun or any other weapon pointed at you, it is best to assume they -will- use it. That means they are directly a threat to you and yours and you should react accordingly, as if they really are a threat. For myself, I have stated my position on this, if I think you ( a general you, not you personally Kythia) are a physical threat to my family or me, especially if you have a weapon, if I have a chance, I -will- take you out with lethal force. I might have problems afterwards, but during it, it will be live or die, the safety of me and my family verse that of a hostile intruder. for me, morals will not come into the equation at all and I would never judge someone harshly for killing someone in legitimate self defense.